Content uploaded by Martin Stanisstreet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Stanisstreet
Content may be subject to copyright.
Southern Cross University
ePublications@SCU
School of Education School of Education
2009
Global warming responses at the primary
secondary interface: 1 Students' beliefs and
willingness to act
Keith R. Skamp
Southern Cross University, keith.skamp@scu.edu.au
Edward Boyes
Martin Stanisstreet
ePublications@SCU is an electronic repository administered by Southern Cross University Library. Its goal is to capture and preserve the intellectual
output of Southern Cross University authors and researchers, and to increase visibility and impact through open access to researchers around the
world. For further information please contact epubs@scu.edu.au.
Suggested Citation
Skamp, KR, Boyes, E & Stanisstreet, M 2009, 'Global warming responses at the primary secondary interface: 1 Students' beliefs and
willingness to act', Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 25, pp. 15-30.
Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 25, 2009 15
ISSN:0814-0626 © Australian Association for Environmental Education
Global Warming Responses at the Primary
Secondary Interface
1. Students’ Beliefs and Willingness to Act
Keith Skamp†
Southern Cross University
Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet
University of Liverpool
Introduction
Global warming is the major environmental issue of the 21st century; at this stage its
effects cannot be removed, only contained (Orr, 2009). Australia, and NSW in particular,
has a very high per capita level of greenhouse gas emission, with residential use and
car travel being two major contributors (NSW Greenhouse Office, 2005). In order
to change behaviours of individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is likely
that a multidisciplinary approach will be needed, with education being an important
component. Given the magnitude and imminence of the problem of global warming, it
is reasonable to suggest that such education should now be directed, at least in part, to
inducing behaviour change.
A recently completed survey of secondary school students in NSW (Skamp, Boyes,
& Stanisstreet, 2009) found considerable differences between these students’ beliefs
about the effectiveness of different actions in alleviating global warming, and disparity
in their willingness to take action. By comparing students’ beliefs about the usefulness
of actions with their willingness to undertake them, a series of novel indices were
constructed. For example, it was possible to produce a measure of “environmental
responsiveness” and, separately, an index of the potential efficacy of education about
different actions in terms of students’ willingness to change behaviours. In the present
paper we report students’ responses to the same survey at the end of primary school
Abstract Using survey methodology, students’ beliefs, and willingness to act, about 16
specific actions related to global warming are compared across the primary
secondary interface. More primary students believed in the effectiveness
of most actions to reduce global warming and were willing to take those
actions. In general there was a disparity between students’ beliefs and their
actions and explanations are proffered for these differences. Characteristics
that distinguish primary from secondary schooling are proposed for the
variations across the interface and these have implications for practice.
†Address for correspondence: A/Professor Keith Skamp, Centre for Children & Young
People, School of Education, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, NSW
2480, Australia. Email: keith.skamp@scu.edu.au
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet16
(Grade 6) and compare their views with students after one year in secondary school
(Grade 7).
Global Warming in the Primary Curriculum
It is now acknowledged that moving towards sustainability literacy is an imperative
in formal school education (Colucci-Gray, Camina, Barbiero, & Gray, 2005; NAAEE,
2004). Sterling (1998) suggests that sustainability learning outcomes for the upper
primary years should address an understanding of how human systems work in
terms of concepts such as inputs, outputs, sources, sinks and flows; a consideration
of how resources may be managed more sustainably in, for example, the house, the
school, and the farm; and an ability to develop indicators for students’ own lifestyles
and communities that they can use to monitor sustainability. These outcomes readily
relate to global warming. For example, schools could address, in part, the energy and
transport “doorways” in the Education for Sustainability Framework in England
(Scott, 2007); and the notion of a “carbon-footprint” is suggested as a key middle school
concept in a draft American sustainability education framework (US Partnership for
Education for Sustainable Development, 2008). In middle school grades (5 to 8) in
NSW, global warming is receiving increased emphasis through the Schools Climate
Change Initiative. The aim of this Initiative is “to assist in the implementation of the
NSW Greenhouse Plan by developing teacher and student awareness, understanding
and environmental citizenship in regard to the local-to-global measures required to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to future climate changes in NSW” (NSW
DET, 2007).
Given these developments, global warming clearly has a place in the primary
curriculum. Grade 6 students will be well aware of it from the intense media coverage
and its inclusion in resources - texts and Internet sites – that they would access. Also, if
they are similar to young people in NSW (15-24 year olds), they would rank it the most
important social issue for the State government to address (DECC, 2007). Furthermore,
although grade 6 and secondary students may hold varying conceptions about global
warming that may influence consequent actions (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993; Lester,
Ma, & Lambert, 2006; Rule, 2005), there is evidence that young children can be quite
sophisticated in their environmental thinking and reasoning and are “highly active
thinkers in the realm of environmental issues” (Palmer & Suggate, 1996; 2004, p. 32)
capable of “systemic thinking” (Wylie, Sheehy, McGuinness, & Orchard, 1998). Moreover,
Sobel (1996, pp. 12, 27; also see Hutchison, 1998, p. 147) has argued that social actions
have a “more central role” for 12 to 15 year olds, and can be appropriate prior to the
adolescent years when the “scope is local and manageable” (p. 35). For example, he
describes how 8-11 year olds turned a “local and manageable” styrofoam litter issue
into a collective action with their local council. Jensen (2002) and Jensen and Schnack’s
(2006) “action competence” research also supports this position.
None-the-less, primary (and secondary) students’ environmental knowledge and
thinking about issues can be limited, incomplete (Rickinson, 2001) and unidimensional
- even after instruction (Birdsall, 2006). They may struggle to distinguish factors
impacting on an environmental issue (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1997) and find it
difficult to think intuitively of political and societal decision-making as causes of
environmental problems (Mogensen, cited in Amarant, 2006). Despite this, it is
important to acknowledge students’ voices. Children of different ages have opinions
about environmental matters and “want to be listened to” (Kwan & Miles, 1998, p. 17).
The present study’s findings may help teachers to “truly” listen to what their students
are saying about environmental matters - something they do not always do (Barratt
Hacking et al., 2006).
17Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
Primary Students’ Concerns, Knowledge, Beliefs, Attitudes and
Behaviours in Relation to Global Warming
Research on perceptions of global warming has referred mainly to secondary students
(see, e.g., Rickinson’s 2001 review), although there are a few exceptions (Frances,
Boyes, Qualter, & Stanisstreet, 1993; Lester et al., 2006). Australian, Singaporean
and British secondary students were concerned about global warming a decade ago,
although this was not found in other international studies from the USA and Europe
(Amarant, 2006). More recently, Scott (2007), referring to secondary and primary
students’ responses to sustainability in schools in England, reported many children are
worried about climate change. Interestingly, Rickinson’s review concluded that older
students were more concerned about environmental issues than younger students, but
that age decreased as a key factor by the secondary grades, suggesting that in earlier
grades it may be more important. Other studies have reported primary and secondary
students’ willingness to take various environmental actions (Amarant, 2006; Chu et al.,
2007; Rickinson 2001; Yilmaz, Boone, & Anderson, 2004), including primary students’
“social activism”, defined by Lester et al. (2006, p. 315) as students “taking personal
responsibility and actions in solving societal problems” and influencing the actions of
others. These studies indicate that social activism increased with better knowledge
about global warming.
Research Questions
This study investigates the relationships between primary students’ beliefs about the
effectiveness of specific actions to reduce global warming, and their declared intention
to take those specific actions. A questionnaire was designed which ensured a degree of
“measurement correspondence” (Kaiser, Wolfing, & Fuhrer, 1999) by covertly pairing
items, first asking about intentions to undertake an action then, separately, inquiring
about the extent to which such an action was believed to be effective in reducing global
warming.
The study was guided by the following questions:
1. What do Grade 6 students believe about the extent to which various actions might
reduce global warming? We have termed this measure their Believed Usefulness of
Action.
2. To what degrees do Grade 6 students intend to undertake these actions? This we
called their Degree of Willingness to Act.
3. Is there a connection between students’ Believed Usefulness of Action and their
Degree of Willingness to Act? In order to address this, we have constructed, for
different actions, Environmental Friendliness Coefficients to provide a measure of
environmental “responsiveness”.
4. Is there a relationship between the Believed Usefulness of Action and the Degree
of Willingness to Act for specific actions? Since such a relationship indicates the
possible changes that may be wrought by increasing the belief that a specific action
is useful, it provides a measure of the Potential Effectiveness of Education in terms
of increasing pro-environmental behaviour.
5. What trends, if any, occur in the above measures and indices across the primary/
secondary interface?
In the present paper we explore the first three and last of these questions; the
fourth query will be addressed in a subsequent publication.
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet18
Methods
Questionnaire Design
Details related to the design and validation of the questionnaire are reported in Skamp,
Boyes and Stanisstreet (2009). The questionnaire began by asking students to record
their grade, age and gender. The first main section probed students’ willingness to
undertake certain actions, their Degree of Willingness to Act, while the second explored
their beliefs about the usefulness of these actions in reducing global warming, their
Believed Usefulness of Action. Of the 20 actions around which the items in the two main
sections of the questionnaire were constructed, 12 related to direct actions which will
reduce global warming, four to indirect actions and four were scientifically incorrect
distracters, based on previous research (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993). Four items at the
end of the questionnaire probed how worried students were about the environmental
impact of global warming, how much they thought they knew about global warming,
how “environmentally friendly” they thought they were, and whether they thought
global warming was happening now. The wording of the questionnaire items is shown
in Appendices 1 and 2.
An important feature of the questionnaire design was that the available responses
to the two sets of items were “matched” semantically and assigned particular scores
(see Appendix 3). Thus, other things being equal, one might expect that the greater
the perceived usefulness of a particular action, the more likely that action is to be
undertaken. For example, if an action was thought to help to reduce global warming
by quite a lot, it might be expected that people would definitely undertake it, other
things being equal. On the other hand, if an action was thought to help to reduce global
warming by nothing at all really, it would be reasonable to anticipate that people would
probably not undertake it. Intermediate positions on each scale were designed with
similar matching in mind, so that deviation from the anticipated approximate “norm”
would be an indication of the degree of environmental “responsiveness” of individuals
given their belief about the issue, or of additional incentives or disincentives for specific
actions.
Student Cohort, Questionnaire Administration and Analyses of Results
Responses from 283 Grade 6 primary students were obtained from five randomly
selected NSW Department of Education and Training (DET) primary schools. One
school was in Sydney, three were in relatively large regional centres and another in a
smaller regional location. For the comparison with secondary schools, responses from
130 Grade 7 students were obtained from two randomly selected New South Wales
DET secondary schools (see Skamp, Boyes, & Stanisstreet, 2009). Both surveys were
administered by the students’ usual classroom teachers, in November or December
2006. Students were assured that their responses were anonymous, and no time limit
was imposed for completion of the questionnaires.
Results
Students’ Degree of Willingness to Act and Believed Usefulness of Action
In the descriptions that follow, percentages given for Degree of Willingness to Act are
the combined responses from students who would “definitely” or “almost certainly”
take the action, while the percentages for Believed Usefulness of Action are the pooled
percentages for students who believe that the action would reduce global warming “by
quite a bit” or “by a fair amount”. Where there were statistically significant differences
(p<0.05, ANOVA) between the responses of the primary students and those of Grade 7
students, the percentages for the primary students are given first, followed by those for
19Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
the Grade 7 students, in the form (x%, y%). Where there was no statistically significant
difference, the percentages are given in the form (x%≈y%).
Students’ Views About Direct Actions
In terms of personal transport, one quarter of primary students were willing to take
public transport rather than their own cars, compared to less than a tenth of Grade
7 students (26%, 8%). This was despite the fact that nearly three quarters of both
groups (71%≈66%) believed this action would reduce global warming. More primary
than Grade 7 students were willing to drive smaller cars (39%, 24%) even though fewer
students (61%≈52%) believed this to be as effective as using public transport.
With reference to the domestic use of energy, less than half of the primary and
Grade 7 students (41%≈34%) were willing to add extra insulation to their home, and
this was similar to the number who believed that this would reduce global warming,
although more primary than Grade 7 (43%, 30%) held this view. More than half of all
students were willing to buy energy-efficient domestic appliances (61%≈55%) but more
primary than Grade 7s (46%, 29%) believed this action to be effective. The action that
primary and Grade 7 (84%, 71%) were most willing to take was to switch off electronic
appliances when they were not needed. This was far more than the number of primary
and Grade 7 (55%, 42%) students who believed this would be effective in reducing
global warming
For electricity supply, although almost three quarters of primary students and half
of Grade 7 students (72%, 59%) believed the use of renewable sources of energy would
reduce global warming, this was not matched by those believing nuclear power would
have similar effects (42%, 32%). Far fewer primary and Grade 7 (13%≈11%) students
were willing to pay more for electricity generated by nuclear power while more would
be willing to pay for electricity from renewable resources, but the percentage was still
relatively low (35%≈26 %).
On a personal level, more primary students were willing to buy fashion items less
often than Grade 7 students (35%, 22%); this was similar to the numbers that believed
this would reduce global warming (32%, 19%). Only about a quarter of both primary
and Grade 7 students (29%≈22%) were willing to eat less meat in their diets, although
more primary than Grade 7 students thought this could reduce global warming (22%,
13%).
Higher numbers of students were willing to take communal actions, with recycling
being the preferred action by three quarters of primary students, although fewer Grade
7 students accepted this action (76%, 61%). Interestingly, fewer primary and Grade 7
students believed this to be an effective action (45%, 39%). A similar trend was found in
the willingness to pay for more trees to be planted (69%, 57%), although the numbers
holding beliefs about the effectiveness of tree planting more closely matched those
willing to take action, again with more primary than Grade 7 students willing to take
action (69%, 57%). In comparison to these actions, only about a two fifths of primary
and Grade 7 students (46%≈37%) were willing to buy more expensive foods that did
not use fertiliser, and even fewer primary and Grade 7 (39%, 22%) believed that this
was effective.
Students’ Views About Indirect Actions
Of special interest was the general unwillingness of students to opt for decisions related
to policy changes, despite on occasions believing that they could have an influence
on global warming. Surprisingly, although about three quarters of both primary and
Grade 7 students (76%≈68%) thought signing international agreements would be
helpful, only a third of primary and even fewer Grade 7 students (32%, 16%) indicated
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet20
a willingness to vote for such actions. Similar percentages were willing for their taxes to
be increased, although again more primary than Grade 7 students (30%, 16%) felt this
way; in this instance, compared to international agreements, fewer actually believed
this could be an influencing factor, but more so with Grade 7 than primary students
(48%, 29%). Slightly more primary and Grade 7 (41%, 25%) students were willing to
support legislation as a means of reducing global warming, but this was still less than
the number of primary and Grade 7 students (56%, 43%) who believed this would be an
effective action. Even with more than half primary and Grade 7 students (61%, 50%)
thinking that being taught more about global warming would help, a willingness to be
personally involved in further education fell away considerably in Grade 7 compared
to primary (48%, 31%).
Students’ Feelings About Global Warming
More primary students believed global warming was happening now compared to Grade
7 students (75%, 65%) and similarly, were also worried about global warming (66%,
55%). However, about equal numbers of primary and Grade 7 students (63%≈62%)
considered themselves “environmentally friendly”. In contrast, more primary students
thought they were reasonably well informed than Grade 7 students (63%, 45%).
Consistency Between Beliefs About Usefulness of Actions and Willingness to Act
Indices for each pair of items concerning the same action were calculated by subtracting
the scores for the Believed Usefulness of Action item from the score for the Degree of
Willingness to Act corresponding item. This index, which we named the Environmental
Friendliness Co-efficient, provided, for each pair of items and for each student, a
measure of the alignment or discrepancy between beliefs about the extent to which
an action would alleviate global warming and their willingness to take that action.
Because of the way in which the scoring of responses had been defined, each index can
have a value of between -1 and +1. A score of zero indicates that the intended action of
a student is more or less consistent with their belief in the usefulness of that action,
according to the semantic matching of the two scales. A positive value means that
they intend to do more than they believe necessary; a negative value means that they
are only willing to do less. It is likely, therefore, that students regard those actions
with positive scores as being relatively convenient or uncostly, or having other benefits,
whereas for those actions with negative scores there are likely to be disincentives to
acting in this way.
The mean values of each of the 16 Environmental Friendliness Coefficients for
Grade 6 students are shown in Figure 1, where they have been arranged in rank order.
The overall mean index for all these primary students and all 16 pairs of questionnaire
items was -0.06. The fact that this value is close to zero suggests that the semantic
matching of the available responses to the two sets of items was broadly as it should be.
For the actions near the top of Figure 1, students in general were willing to act “more
than” their beliefs in the usefulness of the action might warrant. Switching off un-used
electrical devices, recycling, and purchasing more energy-efficient household appliances
were actions that fell into this category. For actions near the bottom of Figure 1, students
were more resistant to taking action than their beliefs might suggest. Here, electricity
supply in the form of nuclear energy or energy from renewable sources and, particularly,
using public transport, appeared to dominate. All of the pairs of questionnaire items
concerned with indirect actions produced negative indices, with the willingness to
vote for international agreements producing the highest level of discordance between
students’ Believed Usefulness of Action and the Degree of Willingness to Act.
21Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
There were no statistically significant differences between the values of the
Environmental Friendliness Coefficients for corresponding actions between the primary
and Grade 7 students, except that the primary students were more willing to act on
their belief that public transport is preferable to private vehicle travel than the Grade
7 students (-0.32, -0.49, p<0.001). This general stability between the primary and
Grade 7 students indicates that the increased proportions of primary students holding
beliefs about the effectiveness of various actions is, in approximate terms, paralleled
by an increased proportion expressing their willingness to take the corresponding
action. It would appear, then, that when more students believe in the effectiveness of
a particular action there is a relatively consistent ratio of such students who indicate
that they are willing to undertake that particular action. This ratio appears to remain
approximately the same for each action, which suggests that the relationship that
has been found between belief and action, for each action, is relatively stable, at least
for these samples of students. This would be compatible with more primary students
believing and being willing to take an action than secondary, while their environmental
“responsiveness” remains approximately the same.
Discussion
Students’ Feelings About Global Warming
A decade ago Australian secondary students were only moderately aware of the
enhanced greenhouse effect (Connell, Fien, Sykes, & Yencken, 1998). The present
study indicates that the majority of Australian primary students believe that global
warming is a real phenomenon. Rather fewer Grade 7 students, although still two
Action Index
Direct actions
Use less electricity in homes (switch off) 0.21
Recycle things more 0.19
Purchase more energy-efficient appliances 0.08
Eat less meat 0.07
Use less artificial fertiliser 0.02
Plant more trees 0.02
Buy fewer new things -0.01
Improve home insulation -0.01
Use smaller cars -0.14
More energy from nuclear power stations -0.20
More energy from renewable sources -0.24
Use cars less -0.32
Indirect actions
Vote for pro-environmental legislation -0.11
Vote for pro-environmental taxation -0.15
Vote for pro-environmental international agreements -0.30
Increase education -0.06
Figure 1: Mean (across primary students) indices for the pairs of items to indicate degree of
environmental ‘responsiveness’
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet22
thirds, hold similar views, suggesting that there has been an increase in awareness in
the intervening years. A recent study shows that a high proportion of Australian adults
believe that global warming is happening (Carson, 2008). Taken with the present
results, this might suggest that there is a drop in acceptance of global warming as
a genuine phenomenon over the period of secondary schooling, which later increases
again. Although temporary, this lowering of belief in global warming does come at a time
when students have opportunities to learn, from authoritative school sources, about
the science of global warming and ways to ameliorate it. There is also a concomitant,
possibly related, decrease in the level of concern about global warming in the Grade
7 students, although the levels of anxiety are still higher than a decade ago (Kwan &
Miles, 1998), probably because evidence about the damaging effects of global warming
has accumulated since then.
Students’ Believed Usefulness of Actions
Although the relationship between knowledge about general environmental issues
may not be directly related to subsequent environmental action (see Environmental
Education Research, 8(3) for reviews), other research (e.g., Lester et al., 2006) does
indicate a relationship between knowledge about specific environmental actions and
taking action. In any case, knowledge of various types is still a prerequisite to informed
environmental decision making (Jensen, 2002), and conceptions about global warming
which can persist into adulthood influence consequent actions (Boyes & Stanisstreet,
1993; Lester, Ma, & Lambert, 2006; Rule, 2005). It is, however, acknowledged that
taking environmental action, whether direct or indirect, is influenced by a multitude of
variables whose influence can change depending upon context (e.g., Barr, 2006).
One relevant intervening variable is perceived self-efficacy – high levels of
perceived self-efficacy appear to be associated with an increased willingness to take
pro-environmental action (P. Devine-Wright, H. Devine-Wright, & Fleming, 2004). In
the present study, the direct pro-environmental actions that were most frequently
believed by a majority of primary students to be effective in reducing global warming
were generating energy from renewable sources, travelling by public rather than
private transport, planting trees and using smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. These
actions are seen as contributions to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into
the atmosphere. While the effects of carbon dioxide are well known by school students
(Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993, 2001; Schreiner, Henriksen, & Kirkeby Hansen, 2005;
Skamp, 2008), the impacts on global warming of eating meat, buying new things, and
eating foods produced with the aid of fertilisers, are less well known. Meat and dairy
products do indeed have a higher “greenhouse price” than fruit and vegetables (Lenzen,
Day, & Murray, 2002), but primary students are less familiar with the impact of nitrogen
oxides and methane on global warming (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993; 2001; Schreiner et
al., 2005). The fact that few students in the present study made connections between
global warming and consumerism may be because it has not been stressed in Australian
environmental education materials related to the global warming (Lenzen & Smith,
1999/2000). In questionnaire responses, primary students thought that taxation would
be least effective in reducing global warming, but more than half had confidence in the
effectiveness of international agreements, education and legislation.
More primary than Grade 7 students believed in the effectiveness of these various
actions, although for a few of the actions the differences were not statistically significant.
A number of factors may contribute to this difference. Firstly, there may be a link
between primary students’ sense that they were informed about global warming. This
finding is consistent with the Loughland, Reid, Walker, and Petocz (2003) observation
that more Australian primary than secondary students felt they “learnt a lot” about
23Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
the environment at school In addition, the primary sector has been more successful
in establishing sustainable schools than the secondary (Henderson & Tilbury, 2004;
Tilbury & Wortman, 2006), so more Grade 6 students may hold these beliefs because
particular environmental actions such as planting trees, reducing energy use and
taking alternative transport may be more familiar. Further, analyses of Australian
science curricula suggests that environmental emphases may be more common in
NSW primary than secondary syllabi (Heck, 2003; Skamp, 2009; Venville & Dawson,
2006), with environmental issues often being taught within the Science Key Learning
Area in NSW schools (Heck, 2003; Tilbury, Coleman, & Garlick, 2005).
Those actions that were thought to be less effective at both levels, such as eating
less meat, may be omitted from primary school content because primary teachers may
be less familiar with them (Papadimitriou, 2004; Rule, 2005). In addition, these issues
are rarely mentioned in the media as sources of greenhouse emissions, and television
is secondary students’ main source of environmental knowledge (Rickinson, 2001).
Finally, the general decrease in beliefs about the effectiveness of various actions across
the primary/secondary interface may be linked to a drop in positive attitudes towards
school science that occurs with this transition (Logan & Skamp, 2008). A consequence
may be that secondary students do not believe they know as much about global warming
as they did in primary school and hence become less confident in their views about the
usefulness of specific actions.
Students’ Degree of Willingness to Act
The majority of primary students were willing to take those actions that were
convenient and most likely practised in primary schools that are working towards
sustainability such as conserving electricity, recycling and planting trees (Tilbury,
Coleman, & Garlick, 2005; Tilbury & Wortman, 2006). For example, an action that
many students were willing to take was to switch off un-used electrical appliances, as
reported in other primary (Chu et al., 2007) and secondary (Amarant, 2006; Rickinson,
2001) studies. A number of reasons probably contribute to an unwillingness to take
some actions. A reluctance to reduce meat consumption, for example, may be related
to lack of awareness of its environmental impacts, while poor support for nuclear-
generated electricity may relate to safety concerns. An unwillingness to use public
transport may be based on an anticipation of inconvenience, as others have also noted
(Amarant, 2006; Rickinson, 2001).
Students’ lack of willingness to take some indirect actions was an unexpected
finding. This may relate to a lack of awareness about what communal environmental
actions are possible, as was found with secondary students (Connell et al., 1998); and
teachers may not be introducing knowledge about collective environmental actions
(Jensen, 2002). Although many primary students engage in school-wide initiatives
such as recycling, effective collaboration beyond the classroom may be less common
(Tilbury, Coleman, & Garlick, 2005).
More primary than Grade 7 students were willing to take action on every item. A
number of reasons may contribute to this difference. For example, this may be because
a higher percentage of primary students believe in the positive impact of such actions,
possibly as a result of their involvement in sustainable school initiatives (Tilbury &
Wortman, 2006). It also may be that primary students are more worried about the
impact of global warming than Grade 7s, a claim that is similar to Hicks and Holden
(1995) and Jenkins and Pell (2006) studies which found that students’ environmental
concerns peak at the end of primary school. The reductions in readiness to act in the
secondary years might also be due to a more realistic assessment of the nature of
environmental issues and the impact they, as students, can have (Rickinson, 2001).
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet24
There could also be an increase in students’ “learned helplessness” (Nagel, 2005),
especially if their school experiences are more focussed on education “about” and
possibly “in” the environment, rather than “for” the environment (Heck, 2003).
Students’ Environmental Friendliness Coefficients
Construction of Environmental Friendliness Coefficients for the different pro-
environmental actions revealed those actions for which students might be more
responsive than their beliefs warranted, and those actions for which students might
be less reactive. In the case of the former, incentives other than an environmental
obligation might be operating. Switching off un-used electrical appliances, for example,
is a minor inconvenience and has additional financial benefits. In the case of the latter,
other disincentives probably counterbalance the wish to act in a pro-environmental
manner. Disinclination to take actions in which students believe may relate to such
actions being inconvenient and economically costly, as Fortner et al. (2000) found with
American adults. The fact that the values of the Environmental Friendliness Coefficients
remained similar across the primary/secondary interface, despite the differences
in these values between different actions, might suggest that such incentives and
disincentives associated with different actions remain reasonably consistent.
Conclusion: the Primary/Secondary Transition
The findings reported here indicate that more primary than Grade 7 students believe
in the effectiveness of various pro-environmental actions and are willing to take them.
Given the small difference in age between these two cohorts of students, it is unlikely
that educational maturation plays a major role. Loughland et al. (2003, p. 11) found
that the “organisation of the primary school” was a key factor, more important than
development with increasing age. Primary students usually have one teacher across all
subjects, so any environmental education is taught as an integrated school experience;
neither of these happens in most secondary schools. Even in secondary schools moving
towards sustainability, there is little integration of environmental education across
subjects and between teachers (Eames, Cowie, & Bolstad, 2008). The overall greater
willingness by primary students to take action on environmental matters may also
be related to an inference Ballantyne, Fien, and Packer (2001) draw that a greater
emphasis on affective learning such as “enjoyment” and “emotion” at the primary level,
compared to the traditional secondary emphasis on discipline knowledge (e.g., see
Rennie, Goodrum, & Hackling, 2001), is important in improving the quality of student
environmental learning outcomes (Loughlan et al., 2003). Certainly Brody’s (2005)
theory of environmental learning as a matrix, with one axis depicting acting, thinking
and feeling intersecting with another having the constructs of physical (setting),
personal (individual), social (shared), and time (continuum) would support emphasising
the affective in environmental education. Furthermore, Littledyke (2008) has argued
for a greater focus in secondary environmental education on a social constructivist
viewpoint, rather than only a personal constructivist perspective (seen especially in
science), in order to provide greater opportunity for the affective domain. If secondary
environmental education is taught mainly in “science” and “human society and its
environment” contexts (Heck, 2003), and if most secondary science education practice
is still “traditional, discipline-based and dominated by content”, then it is probably in
sharp contrast to most primary school science (Rennie et al., 2001, p. 473). As science
is often the key conduit for environmental education at both levels (Tilbury, Coleman,
& Garlick, 2005), this difference may be important in understanding the primary/
secondary differences reported here. Finally, if at the secondary level, environmental
25Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
issues are mainly associated with abstract scientific concepts then this could lead to
alienation as learners struggle to see real-life connections.
Such fundamental differences between primary and secondary schools may be at
the “root” of the differences observed. If this is correct, the very nature of environmental
education at the secondary level needs to be addressed if it is to be more effective
in changing behaviour. It may be that secondary environmental education should
be directed, in part, towards seeking to retain and further develop the more positive
attitudes seen in our study in primary students.
Keywords: Global warming; environmental education; beliefs, actions; primary and
secondary students.
References
Amarant, A. (2006). An investigation into the environmental knowledge, attitudes and
behavioural intentions of elementary school students. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth.
Ballantyne, R., Fien, J., & Packer, J. (2001). School environmental education programme
impacts upon student and family learning: A case study analysis. Environmental
Education Research, 7(1), 23–37.
Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigating the “value-action” gap.
Geography, 91(1) 43–54.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The “Greenhouse Effect”: Children’s perceptions
of causes, consequences and cures. International Journal of Science Education, 15,
531–552.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1997). The environmental impact of cars: Children’s ideas
and reasoning. Environmental education Research, 3, 269–282.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2001). Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose? School
students’ ideas about the “Greenhouse Effect” a decade on. Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education, 6, 77–101.
Barratt Hacking, E., Barratt, R., Scott, W., Talbot, W., Nicholls, D., & Davies, K. (2006).
Education for sustainability: Schools and their communities. In J. Lee & M. Williams
(Eds.), Environmental and geographical education for sustainability (pp. 123–138).
New York: Nova Science.
Birdsall, S. (2006). Sustainability means something clean and tidy, doesn’t it?
Developing and assessing students’ conceptual understanding of sustainability. In
S. Wooltorton & D. Marinove (Eds.), Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental
Education in action (pp. 261–269). Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of Australian
Association of Environmental Education.
Brody, M. (2005). Learning in nature. Environmental Education Research, 11(5), 603–
621.
Carson, R. (2008). Australians want decisive action on climate change. Newsroom
report, University of Technology, Sydney. Retrieved March 4 from http://www.
newsroom.uts.edu.au/news/detail.cfm?ItemId=12359
Chu, H., Eun, A., Hee, R., Dong, H., Lee, M., Byeong, M., & Kyumg, J. (2007). Korean
year 3 children’s environmental literacy: A prerequisite for a Korean environmental
education curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 29(6), 731–746.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camina, E., Barbiero.G., & Gray, D. (2005). From scientific literacy to
sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education,
90, 226–252.
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet26
Connell, S., Fien, J., Sykes, H., & Yencken, D. (1998). Young people and the environment
in Australia: Beliefs, knowledge, commitment and educational implications.
Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 39–48.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). (2007). Who Cares About the
Environment in 2006? Sydney: DECC. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/community/20070002_whocares06part2.pdf
Devine-Wright, P., Devine-Wright, H., & Fleming, P. (2004). Situational influences
upon children’s beliefs about global warming and energy. Environmental Education
Research, 10(4), 493–505.
Eames, C., Cowie, B., & Bolstad, R. (2008). An evaluation of characteristics of
environmental education practice in New Zealand schools. Environmental Education
Research, 14(1), 35–51.
Fortner, R., Lee, J., Corney, J., Romanello, S., Bonnell, J., Luthy, B., Figuerido, C., &
Ntsiko, N. (2000). Public understanding of climate change: Certainty and willingness
to act. Environmental Education Research, 6(2), 127–141.
Francis, C., Boyes, E., Qualter, A., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). Ideas of elementary
students about reducing the “Greenhouse Effect”. Science Education, 77, 375–392.
Heck, D. (2003). The state of Environmental Education in the Australian school
curriculum. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 19, 115–124.
Henderson, K., & Tilbury, D. (2004). Whole-school approaches to sustainability: An
international review of whole-school sustainability programs. Report prepared
by ARIES for the DEH, Australian Government. (Available at http://www.aries.
mq.edu.au/pdf/international_review.pdf [Available September 17, 2007])
Hicks, D., & Holden, C. (1995). Exploring the future: A missing dimension in
environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 185–194.
Hutchison, D. (1998). Growing up green. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Jenkins, E., & Pell, R. (2006). “Me and the environmental challenges”: A survey of
English secondary school students’ attitudes towards the environment. International
Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 765–780.
Jensen, B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental
Education Research, 8(3), 325–334.
Jensen, B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action-competence approach in Environmental
Education. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 471–486.
Kaiser, F., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitudes and ecological
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19.
Kwan, T., & Miles, J. (1998). In the words of children and young people: The opinions and
concerns about their environments of some Brisbane school students. Australian
Journal of Environmental education, 14, 11–18.
Lenzen, M., Day, C., & Murray, J. (2002). A personal approach to teaching about climate
change. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 35–46.
Lenzen, M., & Smith, S. (1999/2000).Teaching responsibility for climate change: Three
neglected issues. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 15/16, 65–76.
Lester, B., Ma, L., & Lambert, J. (2006). Social activism in elementary science education.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 315–339.
Littledyke, M. (2008). Science Education for environmental awareness: Approaches to
integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research,
14(1), 1–17.
Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary
secondary interface: Listening to the students’ voices. Research in Science Education,
38(4), 501–527.
27Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
Loughland, T., Reid, A., Walker, K., & Petocz, P. (2003). Factors influencing young
people’s conceptions of environment. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 3–20.
Nagel, M. (2005). Constructing apathy: How environmentalism and Environmental
Education may be fostering “learned hopelessness” in children. Australian Journal
of Environmental Education, 21, 71–80.
North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). (2004). Excellence
in environmental education guidelines for learning (Pre K-12). Retrieved November
21, 2009, from http://www.naaee.org/npeee/learner_guidelines.php
NSW DET. (2007). Climate change learning community. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from
http://www.illawarra-e.schools.nsw.edu.au/ieec/IEEC_%7C%7C_News_%7C%7C_
Learning_For_Sustainability_%7C%7C_Dapto_Learning_Community_files/
Climate%20change%20strategic%20plan.pdf
NSW Greenhouse Office. (2005). NSW greenhouse plan. Sydney: NSW Government.
Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/
climatechange/2811FINALNSWGHPlanweb.pdf.
Orr, D. (2009, March). Nearly trapped: Design in the age of climate consequences.
Invited lecture for The Institute for Sustainable Design, Cooper Union, New York.
Palmer, J., & Suggate, J. (1996). Influences and experiences affecting the pro-
environmental behaviour of educators. Environmental Education Research, 2(1),
109–122.
Palmer, J.A., & Suggate, J. (2004). The development of children’s understanding of
distant places and environmental issues: Report of a UK longitudinal study of
the development of ideas between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Research Papers in
Education, 19(2), 205–237.
Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers’ understanding of climate
change, greenhouse effect, and ozone later depletion. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 13(2), 299–307.
Rennie, L., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in
Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education,
31(4), 455–498.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical
review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–320.
Rule, A. (2005). Elementary students’ ideas concerning fossil fuel energy. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 53(3), 309–318.
Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E., & Kirkeby Hansen, P. (2005). Climate education:
Empowering today’s youth to meet tomorrow’s challenges. Studies in Science
Education, 41, 3–50.
Scott, W. (2007). Raising standards: Making sense of the sustainable schools agenda.
London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Skamp, K. (Ed.). (2008). Materials and change. In K. R. Skamp (Ed.), Teaching primary
science constructively (3rd ed., pp. 304–347). Melbourne: Thomson Learning.
Skamp, K. R. (in press). School science and environmental education. In S. Ritchie
(Ed.), The World of science education: Australasia. Rotterdam: Sense.
Skamp, K., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2004). Students’ ideas and attitudes about air
quality. Research in Science Education, 34(3), 313–342.
Skamp, E., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary students’ views
about global warming: beliefs about actions, and willingness to act. Research in
Science Education, 39(5), 661–680.
Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecopbobia. Great Barringtion: The Orion Society and the
Myrin Institute.
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet28
Sterling, S. (1998). First Annual Report 1998 Annex 4 - Submission to the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority. A Report to DfEE/QCA on Education for Sustainable
Development in the Schools Sector from the Panel for Education for Sustainable
Development- 14 September 1998. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from http://www.
defra.gov.uk/environment/sustainable/educpanel/1998ar/ann4.htm#d
Tilbury, D., Coleman, V., & Garlick, D. (2005). A National Review of Environmental
Education and its Contribution to Sustainability in Australia: School Education.
Canberra: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water
Resources and the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability
(ARIES).
Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2006). “Whole school” approaches to sustainability. In J. Lee
& M. Williams (Eds.), Environmental and geographical education for sustainability
(pp. 65–78). New York: Nova Science.
US partnership for education for sustainable development. (2009). Draft education for
sustainability K-12 student learning standards. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from
http://www.uspartnership.org/resources/0000/0081/USP_EFS_standards_V3_10_09.
pdf
Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2006). An overview and comparison of Australian State and
Territory K-10 science curriculum documents. Teaching Science, 52(2), 17–24.
Wylie, J., Sheehy, N., McGuinness, C., & Orhard, G. (1998). Children’s thinking about
air pollution: A systems theory analysis. Environmental Education Research, 4(2),
117–137.
Yilmaz, O., Boone, W., & Anderson, H. (2004). Views of elementary and middle school
Turkish students towards environmental issues. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(12), 1527–1546.
29Global Warning Responses at the Primary Secondary Interface (1)
Focus of
interest
Items about students’
Degree of Willingness to Act
Items about students’
Believed Usefulness of Action
Direct actions
Transport Even if it took me longer and was more inconvenient,
I would try to use buses and trains instead of a car
If people didn’t use their cars so much, global warming
would be reduced
Even if it was not as fast or luxurious, I would try to
get a car that uses less petrol or diesel
If people had smaller cars that used less petrol or
diesel, global warming would be reduced
Power
generation
Providing more of our energy was produced from the
wind and waves and sun, I would be willing to pay
more for electricity
If more of our energy was produced from the wind,
waves and sun, global warming would be reduced
Providing more of our energy was produced from
nuclear power stations, I would be willing to pay
more for electricity
If more of our energy was produced from nuclear power
stations, global warming would be reduced
Domestic To save electricity, I would switch things off at home
when I didn’t need them
If people used less electricity in their homes, global
warming would be reduced
Even though it cost me money, I would get extra
insulation for my home
If people got their homes insulated better, global
warming would be reduced
Even if it cost me more, I would buy things for my
home (like fridges and washing machines) that use
less energy
If people got things for their homes (like fridges and
washing machines) that used less energy, global
warming would be reduced
Personal Even if it meant that I didn’t always have the latest
“gear” or fashion, I would be prepared to buy new
things less often
If people were prepared to buy fewer new things and
make do with the old ones, global warming would be
reduced
Even if I really liked meat, I would eat fewer meals
with meat in them
If people eat less meat, global warming would be
reduced
Communal Even if I had to pay more taxes, I think there should
be more trees planted in the world
If more trees were planted in the world, global
warming would be reduced
Even if it was more trouble for me, I would recycle
things rather than just throw them away
If people recycled things more, global warming would
be reduced
Even if it was more expensive, I would buy food
grown without the use of artificial fertilizers
If farmers stopped using artificial fertilisers with
nitrogen in them, global warming would be reduced
Indirect actions
Legislation I would vote for a politician who said they would
bring in laws to reduce global warming, even though
it would stop me doing some of the things I enjoy
If politicians made the right kind of new laws, global
warming would be reduced
Taxation I would vote for a politician who said they would
increase taxes to pay for reducing global warming,
even though it meant me having less money to spend
If politicians made people pay more tax and spent the
money on the right kind of things, global warming
would be reduced
Co-
operation
Even though it might mean some inconvenience
to me (like changing my job), I would vote for a
politician who said they would sign agreements with
other countries on global warming
If there could be more agreement between different
countries about not putting certain gases into the air,
global warming would be reduced
Education I would like to learn more about global warming,
even though it would mean extra work for me
If people were taught more about it, global warming
would be reduced
Unscientifc
Even though it cost me money, I would get air
conditioning in my home
If more people got air conditioning in their homes and
offices, global warming would be reduced
Even if it was more trouble for me, I would not drop
litter in the streets
If people stopped dropping litter in the streets, global
warming would be reduced
Even if it was more trouble for me, I would not drop
litter on the beach
If the pollution in the oceans of the world were cleaned
up, global warming would be reduced
Even if it was more expensive, I would buy food
grown without the use of pesticides
If farmers stopped using pesticides on their crops,
global warming would be reduced
In the questionnaire, items were arranged in random order within the sections, an in different orders in the two sections.
Here the items have been grouped according to their focus of interest, and arranged in the ‘pairs’
Appendix 1: Wording and ‘Pairing’ of the Items in the Two Main Sections of the Questionnaire
Keith Skamp, Eddie Boyes & Martin Stannistreet30
Items Available responses
How worried are you about what
Global Warming might do to the
environment?
I am very worried
I am quite worried
I am a little bit worried
I am not worried at all
How much do you think you know
about Global Warming?
I know a lot about global warming
I know something about global warming
I know a little about global warming
I know almost nothing about global warming
How ‘environmentally friendly’
do you think you are? (How much
do you think you ‘take care of’ the
environment by the things you
do?)
I am very environmentally friendly
I am quite environmentally friendly
I am a bit environmentally friendly
I am not at all environmentally friendly
Do you think that Global Warming
is really happening now?
I am sure global warming is happening
I think global warming is happening
I don’t know whether global warming is happening
or not
I think global warming is not happening
I am sure global warming is not happening
Appendix 2: Wording and Available Responses of Final Four Items of the Questionnaire
Wording and Scoring of the Available Responses to the Items in the Two Main
Sections of the Questionnaire
Available responses to items about
students’
Believed Usefulness of Action
Available responses to items
about students’
Degree of Willingness to Act
Scoring
by quite a lot definitely 1.00
by a fair amount almost certainly 0.75
by a small but useful amount probably 0.50
by a very small amount - hardly
noticeable
perhaps 0.25
by nothing at all really probably not 0.00
Appendix 3:
Copyright of Australian Journal of Environmental Education is the property of Australian Association for
Environmental Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.