Environmental Attitudes on Conservation and Utilization
Table 1 Differences between Environmental Attitudes on Conservation and Utilization
Environmental attitudes
|
N
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
Mean
|
Std. deviation
|
Conservation
|
832
|
0
|
5
|
4.27
|
.69
|
Utilization
|
2.41
|
1.21
|
t-test
|
95% CI
|
Effect size
|
t
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
Mean difference
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Cohen’s d
|
38.62
|
< .001***
|
1.86
|
1.767
|
1.956
|
1.89
|
Table 1 showed that there was a significant difference between the environmental attitudes on conservation and utilization, t (1313.94) = 38.62, p < .001 (two-tailed), 95% CI of the difference between means = (1.767, 1.956). Cohen’s d = 1.89 > 0.8, the effect size was large according to Cohen (1988). On average, their environmental attitude on conservation (M = 4.27, SD = .69) was significantly more positive than their environmental attitude on utilization (M = 2.41, SD = 1.21).
Table 2 Differences between Environmental Attitudes on Conservation and Utilization of Different Educational Backgrounds, Working Years and Workplaces
Educational backgrounds
|
t-test
|
95% CI
|
Effect size
|
t
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
Mean difference
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Cohen’s d
|
Technical secondary school
|
10.10
|
< .001***
|
1.35
|
1.089
|
1.618
|
1.93
|
College
|
27.69
|
< .001***
|
1.89
|
1.752
|
2.019
|
1.39
|
Undergraduate
|
23.06
|
< .001***
|
2.11
|
1.929
|
2.288
|
2.09
|
Master or doctor
|
12.56
|
< .001***
|
2.59
|
2.167
|
3.005
|
4.31
|
Other lower levels
|
8.46
|
< .001***
|
1.34
|
1.024
|
1.653
|
1.63
|
Working Years
|
t-test
|
95% CI
|
Effect size
|
t
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
Mean difference
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Cohen’s d
|
Less than or equal to 1 year
|
12.64
|
< .001***
|
1.57
|
1.324
|
1.813
|
1.56
|
More than 1 and less than or equal to 3
|
19.27
|
< .001***
|
1.81
|
1.626
|
1.996
|
1.93
|
More than 3 and less than or equal to 5
|
15.62
|
< .001***
|
2.11
|
1.717
|
2.213
|
1.91
|
More than 5 and less than or equal to 10
|
20.56
|
< .001***
|
1.96
|
1.775
|
2.151
|
1.97
|
More than 10 and less than or equal to 20
|
14.59
|
< .001***
|
1.93
|
1.668
|
2.190
|
1.96
|
More than 20 years
|
10.93
|
< .001***
|
2.02
|
1.645
|
2.387
|
2.58
|
Workplaces
|
t-test
|
95% CI
|
Effect size
|
t
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
Mean difference
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Cohen’s d
|
Public kindergarten
|
18.09
|
< .001***
|
2.04
|
1.815
|
2.258
|
2.14
|
Private kindergarten
|
32.23
|
< .001***
|
1.81
|
1.699
|
1.919
|
1.80
|
Other organizations
|
13.10
|
< .001***
|
2.11
|
1.732
|
2.355
|
2.65
|
Table 2 showed that early childhood teachers, no matter what educational levels they had, how many years they had worked for and where they worked, had a significantly more positive environmental attitude on conservation than that on utilization.
Cultural Factors and the Impacts on Environmental Attitudes
Table 3 Cultural Factors and the Relationships with Background Information
Independent
|
Dependent
|
Correlation co-efficient
|
Cultural factors
|
Mean
|
Std. deviation
|
Gender
|
Power distance
|
2.58
|
1.28
|
-.089*
|
Educational background
|
-.001
|
Working years
|
.040
|
Workplace
|
-.037
|
Gender
|
Authority
|
1.83
|
1.29
|
-.106**
|
Educational background
|
.010
|
Working years
|
-.052
|
Workplace
|
-.011
|
Gender
|
Collectivism
|
3.70
|
.91
|
.008
|
Educational background
|
.091**
|
Working years
|
.229**
|
Workplace
|
-.015
|
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 3 showed that in-service early childhood teachers preferred a moderate level of power distance (2.58 out of 5), a low level of authority control (1.83 out of 5) and a relatively high level of collectivism (3.70 out of 5). Power distance (rs = -.089, p < .05, two-tailed) and authority (rs = -.106, p < .01, two-tailed) were negatively related to gender, which indicated that males would be more likely to accept higher power distance and authority control in kindergartens although the links were very weak (rs < 0.3) according to Cohen (1988). Collectivism was positively related to educational backgrounds (rs = .091, p < .01, two-tailed) and working years (rs = .229, p < .01, two-tailed). This implied that early childhood teachers with higher educational levels and longer working years would be more likely to concern collective interests. Similarly, these relationships were very weak (rs < 0.3).
Table 4 Relationships between Cultural Factors and Environmental Attitudes
Independent
|
Dependent
|
Correlation co-efficient
|
Power distance
|
Environmental attitudes on conservation
|
-.064
|
Authority
|
-.149**
|
Collectivism
|
.372**
|
Power distance
|
Environmental attitudes on utilization
|
.245**
|
Authority
|
.188**
|
Collectivism
|
.159**
|
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 4 showed that the environmental attitudes on conservation were related to authority negatively (r = -.149, p < .01, two-tailed) and collectivism positively (r = .372, p < .01, two-tailed) while the environmental attitudes on utilization were positively related to power distance (r = .245, p < .01, two-tailed), authority (r = .188, p < .01, two-tailed) and collectivism (r = .159, p < .01, two-tailed).
Table 5 Linear Regression of Cultural Factors and Environmental Attitudes
Independent
|
Dependent
|
R
|
R square
|
R square change
|
F change
|
Sig. F change
|
Authority
|
Environmental attitudes on conservation
|
.149
|
.022
|
.022
|
18.760
|
< .001***
|
Collectivism
|
.394
|
.156
|
.133
|
131.010
|
< .001***
|
Authority and Collectivism
|
|
|
|
76.354
|
< .001***
|
Power distance
|
Environmental attitudes on utilization
|
.245
|
.060
|
.060
|
52.845
|
< .001***
|
Authority
|
.249
|
.062
|
.002
|
2.078
|
.150
|
Collectivism
|
.297
|
.088
|
.026
|
23.431
|
< .001***
|
All three factors
|
|
|
|
26.637
|
< .001***
|
According to table 5, authority and collectivism together could significantly predict the environmental attitudes on conservation (F (2, 829) = 76.354, p < .001) and explain 15.6% of the total variance. Meanwhile, all these three cultural factors could significantly predict the environmental attitudes on utilization, F (3, 828) = 26.637, p < .001. Power distance and collectivism were significant individual predictors while authority was not.
In sum, in-service early childhood teachers had a significantly more positive attitude on environmental conservation than that on environmental utilization regardless of their educational levels, working years and workplaces. Those teachers with higher educational levels and more working years would express more collective concerns. More emphasis on authority openness and collective interests could predict more positive environmental attitudes on conservation while higher levels of power distance and collectivism could predict more positive environmental attitudes on utilization.
Qualitative Findings
Environmental Attitudes
1) Most participants showed very positive attitudes on natural environments due to the nature play during their childhood.
‘My school had kapok, and I often took kapok as a shuttlecock to kick. So, my mood is very relaxed and happy. No pressure’ (Interviewee 1).
‘When I was a child, I like collecting rainwater very much’ (Interviewee 3).
‘I loved nature. I played with it as a child. I played in the mountains by the water, a big creek’ (Interviewee 5).
‘In the past when I was a child, I played with water in the rain without an umbrella and got wet. I was very happy. This is so happy and very impressive. I like this natural environment since my childhood’ (Interviewee 8).
‘Every summer holiday I went back to the rural life. I often dream of the wild fields. This is great’ (Interviewee 9).
‘These experiences are our unforgettable memory. We had the happiest hour at that time’ (Interviewee 11).
2) However, many of them learned little knowledge about natural environments and they attached more importance to the safety of children rather than the integration of natural environments into early childhood education.
‘I have never learned about it…You need to check the environment in advance and find out what is suitable, what is the risk’ (Interviewee 2).
‘I have never learned anything about the natural environments’ (Interviewee 3).
‘When I studied in schools, I almost did not learn any knowledge about nature…To prepare the procedure and the teaching framework, check the environments in advance to ensure safety’ (Interviewee 4).
‘I didn't learn anything about nature when I was studying in school before…risk assessment of the site’ (Interviewee 5).
‘A pre-set plan, understanding of safety rules and risks, materials prepared for the outdoors’ (Interviewee 6).
‘I learned something in my school years when there was a course called nature, but later I did less. After I worked in kindergartens, we did some topics of nature exploration. Actually, this part is almost blank’ (Interviewee 8).
‘They need to familiarize the site with a walk around and check risks such as railings, benches’ (Interviewee 9).
‘I seldom get in contact with the information about nature before. We have no relevant courses about this in my university studies’ (Interviewee 10).
‘Safety is the first. We will design some routes and check the place in advance before activities’ (Interviewee 11).
‘Natural environments are not strange to me. I am from the countryside, so I am familiar with natural things, but I didn't learn much about it when I was studying in schools’ (Interviewee 12).
In short, the interviewees showed positive attitudes on natural environments, but less positive attitudes on utilizing nature in early childhood education as they lacked relevant knowledge and trainings.
Cultural Factors
1) Collectivism was highlighted. Most interviewees gave priority to collective interests rather than their individual benefits.
‘I have a good relationship with my colleagues and superiors…I'll follow the overall situation if I have to. For myself, I think it is ok’ (Interviewee 3).
‘Mostly, I will consider the collective interests first. Anyway, it depends on different circumstances’ (Interviewee 4).
‘In most cases I give priority to most people's interests’ (Interviewee 5).
‘The team is very good. Consider whether it is important or not for myself. If it is not so important, I will care collective interests more’ (Interviewee 6).
‘Most of the time I still meet the collective needs’ (Interviewee 7).
‘If other people have good ideas, I can give up my personal interests. I'm relatively still democratic’ (Interviewee 8).
‘The group can go on without me, but I am willing to sacrifice myself, and my personal interests are nothing’ (Interviewee 9).
‘The collective interest is more important, but there is still a bottom line to protect my own interests to the greatest extent’ (Interviewee 11).
‘The collective interest is of course still more important’ (Interviewee 12).
2) Even though the power and authority of kindergarten principals were important, early childhood teachers could still participate in the decision-making of certain issues to different extents.
‘I do not join major decisions in the kindergarten, but I am involved in classroom curriculum planning, such as the principal's projects’ (Interviewee 7).
‘I am not the final decision maker, but I can still make suggestions and have some influences on decision-making’ (Interviewee 8).
‘We all have teaching and research meetings…I implement the plans to see if there is anything that needs to be modified in real practices. Anyway, I still participate and give my suggestions’ (Interviewee 10).
‘In terms of the curriculum, I discuss it with our leaders and after it is approved, I ask teachers to implement it’ (Interviewee 12).
3) Early childhood teachers required more support from kindergarten principals, universities and governments so that they could be more willing to establish links to nature and conduct nature-based classes.
‘You have to train them with knowledge and provide support on skills. If the teachers themselves find the fun, they will be more willing to go into nature’ (Interviewee 1).
‘More practices for teachers to know whether they like it or not. Without this, it is impossible to go outside. Experience is important’ (Interviewee 2).
‘Practice first, love nature at heart, experience more and slowly become interested’ (Interviewee 3).
‘Teachers also need more trainings, practices in the class and feel the nature step by step. Some people really do not like nature and after their leaders asked them to do so, they increasingly showed interests and liked it…We also need to provide more emotional support’ (Interviewee 5).
‘More experiential trainings, more cases in real practices so that we can share. Do not always talk about theories and concepts’ (Interviewee 7).
‘The government and academic researchers need to pay more attention so that the concept of nature can penetrate from top to bottom’ (Interviewee 9).
‘Conduct more trainings, create an environment full of natural elements so that other people can experience and feel nature first’ (Interviewee 10).
In sum, the interviewees attached more importance to collectivism but placed less emphasis on power distance and authority control. However, power and authority still played a key role when they required more support from leaders to establish links to outdoor nature and integrate natural environments into early childhood education.