Role of an environmental studies course on the formation of environmental worldviews: a case study of a core curriculum requirement using the NEP Scale

The Structure and Coherence of the New Environmental Paradigm: Reconceptualizing the Dimensionality Debate

“…This tripart factor structure was then somewhat confirmed by Geller and Lasley (1985). Since that time, a number of studies have found that the NEP scale, in both the original and the revised versions, has two or more dimensions (e.g., Bechtel et al, 2006;Corral-Verdugo & Armendariz, 2000;Edgell & Nowell, 1989;Englis & Phillips, 2013;Fleury-Bahi et al, 2015;Furman, 1998;Gooch, 1995;Noe & Snow, 1990;Schuett & Ostergren, 2003;Woodworth et al, 2011).…”

“…Nooney et al (2003, p. 765) interpret the persistent debate on the dimensionality as a reflection on the lack of agreement regarding whether the NEP is a unified system of beliefs, and therefore argue that attention is needed on the "magnitude and direction of covariance between latent factors" to gain insight about "the cultural organization of environmental world views." Woodworth et al (2011), on the other hand, argue their analysis affirms an emerging consensus that the NEP measures a coherent set of environmental beliefs; or an environmental paradigm or world view.…”

“…As in the case of any multi-item scale, it is critical to make sure that all items measure the same underlying construct, which necessitates examination of a scale's internal consistency and dimensionality. Up to this point, we can see studies demonstrating that the 12-15 items in the original and revised NEP scales load onto two (e.g., Gooch, 1995;Ji, 2004;Noe & Snow, 1990;Nooney et al, 2003;Van Riper & Kyle, 2014), three (e.g., Albrecht et al, 1982;Edgell & Nowell, 1989;Englis & Phillips, 2013;Geller & Lasley, 1985), four (e.g., Erdogan, 2013;Furman, 1998;Khan et al, 2012), and even five or more underlying factors (e.g., Brennan et al, 2014;Woodworth et al, 2011;Wu, 2012). Furthermore, while some studies find factors corresponding to the hypothesized facets as identified in Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and Dunlap et al (2000) (e.g., Albrecht et al, 1982;Amburgey & Thoman, 2012;Woodworth et al, 2011), most studies do not.…”

“…First, Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) demonstrate that both the length of the NEP scale (6, 12, or 15 items) and the choices of items (in studies not using the full scales) can affect the findings on the factor structure of the NEP. Second, many studies using one form of exploratory factor analysis (e.g., Brennan et al, 2014;Englis & Phillips, 2013;Ji, 2004;Noe & Snow, 1990;Woodworth et al, 2011;Wu, 2012) tend to find factors that mostly reflect sample-specific methodological artifacts, such as survey question wording direction (see a review of this issue in Dunlap et al, 2000). Third, scholars also use different practices when interpreting results that can cause inconsistencies in their interpretation of findings.…”

Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?

“…Because only a pre-post research design can provide an unequivocal answer, we suggest that it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the findings can be attributed to the acquisition of tools and skills during the course of studies, as most of them are not common knowledge. Support for this suggestion consists of studies using a pre-post design, showing that exposure to an environmental academic education indeed increases positive environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge, particularly in those areas that require more complex understanding, resource management, policy prioritization, and informed decision-making [6,54,[73][74][75]. The aforementioned changes are, in fact, the skills and tools that enable one to assess environmental risks and the connection between various environmental problems.…”