Susan Randolph

North Carolina State University

Gigiotti, L.M. (1992). Environmental Attitudes.

Kollmuss, A.,& Agyeman, J. (2002). Why do People act environmentally and what are barriers to pro-environmental behavior?

Jensen, B.B., & Neilson, K. ( 2003). Action-oriented environmental education:Clarifying the concept of action.

Breiting, S. & Mogenson, F. ( 1999). Action Competence and Environmental Education.

Pooley, J.A., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are

what is needed.

Environmental education not producing environmentally friendly mindset and actions.

Moral mandate for sustainability.

Water conservation is understudied in education.

Curricular project design can utilize research based recommendations.

Will the completion of an action-based water project create change in student water conservation action?

Do student perceptions about personal use of water resources change?

Pre and Post-Survey with treatment and control groups

Sample Population

High School Students Earth/Environmental Science 26 treatment, 21 control Demographics

Likert Scale Survey 1-5

Item 1. I do not know much about how to help conserve water resources.

Item 2. I can affect the global water shortage through my actions.

Item 3. Even if I conserved water, what real difference would it make, so why do it.

Item 4. I have a good understanding of how to conserve water in my daily life

Item 5. A group of people can make a real difference in water conservation.

Seven day Personal Water Conservation Project

2 day baseline, 5 day implementation

Personal action plan and daily reflections

Full class based analysis and statistical picture

Positive emotional and empowering experience

Author as administrator : used ID numbers only, consistent application

Survey Design: multiple items, same format, directions, placement

Student Attitudes: time of day, directions

Sample size, absences

Water unit content: varied between groups, focus on importance of water

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Item

Valu

e 1

-5

Item 1 Treatment Group

presurvey 5

postsurvey 5

Item Number Pre-survey mean Post-survey mean Delta

Item 1

Control group (n= 21) 2.286 2.095 0.19

Treatment group ( n=26) 2.577 1.846 0.73

Item 2

Control group 3.619 3.714 0.10

Treatment group 3.333 4.231 0.90

Item 3

Control group 2.143 2.333 0.19

Treatment group 2.692 1.692 1.0

Item 4

Control group 3.857 3.905 0.05

Treatment group 3.231 4.192 0.96

Item 5

Control group 4.333 4.095 0.24

Treatment group 4.423 4.808 0.38

Paired t-test (single tail) values for Treatment and Non-Treatment groups (p<0.01**)

Item Control Treatment Group

1 0.2316 0.000169**

2 0.3771 0.000383 **

3 0.2591 0.000242**

4 0.3945 0.000124**

5 0.1430 0.000251**

Item number Mean Variance t stat P(T<=t), p<.05*

Item 1

Control -0.190 1.262

Treatment -0.731 1.325 -1.62 0.0561

Item 2

Control 0.095 1.890

Treatment 0.962 1.64 2.215 0.0162*

Item 3

Control 0.190 1.76

Treatment -1.0 2.72 -2.75 0.00874*

Item4

Control 0.0476 0.648

Treatment 0.962 0.647 3.200 0.0013*

Item 5

Control -0.2381 0.991

Treatment 0.385 0.406 2.49 0.0091*

Although initial pre-test levels for the groups differed, the control scores never varied by more than 0.24 and averaged 0.15. The treatment score average change was 0.81.

Paired t test results for changes by item were all significant at p< 0.01.

4 item gain score comparisons were significant at p< 0.05.

Item 1, 3 and 4 support an increase in student action.

Item 2 and 5 support a change in student perceptions toward water conservation.

More study needs to be done in the area of water conservation education.

Research based concepts from the literature can help design instructionally effective projects in water conservation.

Effective water conservation education should include intellectual, affective and action oriented components to be effective.