CORRELATIONAND COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL WORLDVIEW AND

LITERACY BETWEEN UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG AND UNIVERSITAS

BRAWIJAYA
PAPER
Arranged to Fullfill the Assignment of English for Biology guided by Dr. Sueb, M.Kes
Will be presented on Wednesday, November 22, 2017

By Group 2 Class C of 2017

Akmadanti Elhanda Farintaningrum (170341615043)
Hidayati Maghfiroh (170341615082)
Mahesti Puspa Parnasukma (170341615091)

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
November 2017
 CORRELATION AND COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL WORLDVIEW AND LITERACY
BETWEEN UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG AND UNIVERSITAS BRAWIJAYA

A.E, Farintaningrum, H. Maghfiroh, M.P, Parnasukma, and Dr. Sueb, M.Kes

Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, UniversitasNegeri Malang
Email: maghfirohhidayati@gmail.comdansueb.fmipa@um.ac.id

Abstract
Environmental problems mostly arise from human activities. Pollution and the depletion of natural
resources, dwindling plant and animal biodiversity, the loss of wilderness, the degradation of ecosystems, and
climate change are all the environmental concerns caused by humans. The purpose of this research was to
explore the correlation and comparison of environmental worldview and environmental literacy between
Universitas Negeri Malang Faculty of Economics and Universitas Brawijaya Faculty of Agriculture. The
respondent of Universitas Negeri Malang mostly from male gender, but from Universitas Brawijaya mostly
from female gender. The survey instrument included the total, mean, standard deviation, t-test, and correlation
from quistionnare environmental worldview and literacy. In general, The value from quistionnare of
environmental worldview show that Universitas Brawijaya has higher value of total and mean than Universitas
Negeri Malang. Both of them have a good value for standard deviation. The correlation of environmental
worldview and environmental literacy between UM and UB have the strong and very strong relationship.
However, the comparison of environmental worldview and environmental literacy between UM and UB have no
significant. It means that the knowledge and literacy of each department are same. That happen because we just
have little samples.

Keywords: correlation, comparison, environmental worldview, environmental literacy

INTRODUCTION
Today's environmental problems mostly arise from human activities. Pollution and the
depletion of natural resources, dwindling plant and animal biodiversity, the loss of
wilderness, the degradation of ecosystems, and climate change are all the environmental
concerns caused by humans (Cochrane, 2007). Technology and science human has
transformed and destroyed nature for centuries. However as a result of this destruction,
serious environmental problems threaten the future of his own future. At this point
technology is helpless to save the earth. The deterioration of the environment produced by
technology is a technological problem for which technology has found, is finding, and will
continue to find solutions. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been devoted to improve the
quality of the environment and that much more will be spent in the future. Despite these
intense efforts expended in ‘saving the environment’, it is questionable whether current
scientific and technological approaches can be sufficiently effective in solving numerous
environmental crises (Huesemann, 2001).

Humanity faces a dire and growing crisis. Technological advances in the past - such
as the mobilization of fossil fuels and the spectacular increases in food production flowing
from improved plant breeding techniques have both raised living standards and imposed
unanticipated and unwanted side effects on the environment (Bowers, 2010). Industry, mass
consumption and the increased energy needs of a growing global population are partly
responsible for pollution, resource depletion and species extinction. Globalization has
occurred alongside and sometimes nurtured these developments. Globalization, which is
partly synonymous with rising international trade, has fostered the rapid production, trade and
consumption of material goods in unprecedented quantities. This has weighted the ecological
footprint of human activities around the world. While it’s still difficult to assess the impact of
globalization on the environment, it’s quite obvious in some areas. Today globalization’s
negative environmental effects are more apparent. For example, increased pollution linked to
transport immediately comes to mind (Huvart and Verdier, 2013).

While greenhouse gasses continue their relentless buildup in the atmosphere, policies
that might mitigate climate change and all its risks to planetary ecosystems are, at best,
inching forward. The public meanwhile shows limited support for mitigation, and a similarly
limited awareness of the mechanisms and risks associated with this issue (Weber & Stern,
2011). The determinants of actual behavior change on the part of individuals, households,
businesses and institutions, are extremely complex, and numerous structural and
psychological barriers block the shift in energy consumption that is necessary to avoid
potentially catastrophic effects of climate change (Stern, 2011). Although awareness of
environmental issues is only one determinant of this behavioral change, a better public
understanding of climate science should increase support for those mitigating policies, by at
least increasing public acceptance of scientific consensus and the need for these policies.
However, educating the electorate on the topic of climate change is made difficult in several
ways: first, by the questions of what message and what media are best for informing people;
second, by the inherent complexity of the topic, particularly for those without a scientific
orientation; and finally by the presence of significant political and economic interests that
promote doubts in the public about the present and future effects of climate change (Stern,
2011). In the United States the result has been a public that is increasingly polarized on
energy policies designed to mitigate climate change (Weber and Stern, 2011).

“Environmental education” is a term that first appeared at the Tbilisi congress in

1977. It can be defined as “the education process of individuals by gaining the necessary
information and skills and increasing their motivations and attitudes to put forward ideas on
the solution of environmental problems and to behave environmentally friendly” (UNESCO,
1978). The goal of environmental education is to educate individuals in order to make them
highly environmentally literate (Kışoğlu et al., 2010). According to Roth (1992) an
environmentally literate individual can comprehend the relationship between natural and
social systems, believes in the unity of human beings and nature, is aware of the effects of
technological developments on the environment and knows that he/she can learn
environmental information throughout of his/her life. Environmental literacy has four
constituents knowledge, attitude, behaviour and awareness.

This new perspective was believed to be replacing the so-called Dominant Social
Paradigm, which rested on belief in a laissez faire economy and limited governmental
planning, as well as assumptions of anthropocentrism and unlimited resources, resilience of
nature, and potential for growth. Revised and renamed in 2000, the current NEP scale was
intended to measure basic beliefs about the relationship between humans and nature, and
includes 15 Likert items, with three items devoted to each of five concepts or facets:
antianthropocentrism, antiexemptionalism, limits to growth, the sensitivity of the balance of
nature, and the likelihood of environmental catastrophe (Dunlap et al., 2000). Thus, the NEP
attempted to assess endorsement of the new perspective that the authors deemed necessary
for adaptation to a newly limited world.

The purpose of this research was to explore the correlation and comparation of
environmental worldview and environmental literacy between UniversitasNegeri Malang and
Universitas Brawijaya.

METHOD
This descriptive-quantitative research study aimed to comparison environmental worldview
and environmental literacy between UniversitasNegeri Malang and UniversitasBrawijaya.
Participants
The participants for this study were resident students, ages 17-19, at UniversitasNegeri
Malang and UniversitasBrawijaya.The study was conducted on November 16-17, 2017. The
population of respondents are 400 from Faculty Economy UniversitasNegeri Malang and
from Faculty Agriculture UniversitasBrawijaya the respondents are 442, and total samples are
30people.Comparison groups were formed on the basis of the name university (at
UniversitasNegeri Malang and UniversitasBrawijaya), gender, and fact of variables

Figure 1.The Location of UniversitasBrawijaya Figure 2. The Location of UniversitasNegeri Malang

Procedure
A self-administered questionnaire (in English with Indonesian translation) was distributed to
the respondents who signed the consent form to participate in this study. The questionnaire
consists of 2 parts: environmental worldview and environmental literacy. Questions on
environmental worldview and environmental literacy were summed, and the total score of
each part was obtained. For each knowledge item, a strong agree answer was coded 5, agree
answer was coded 4, netral answer was coded 3, disagree answer was coded 2, and strong
disagree answer was coded 1.
Survey instrument
The instrument of environmental worldview is taken from (Rideout, 2014) and the instrument
of environmental literacy is taken from (ElifAtabek-Yiğit, 2014).
Data Analysis
T-test and correlation
We used T-test to compare the result with t-table. The test uses the level of significance in
5%. We used correlation to explain the relationship between 2 or more mutually aged
variables shown by the coefficient of relation (r). The variable is also determined by the scale
of the data obtained.
RESULT
Table 1. Mean of Envvironmental Worldview and Environmental Literacy of UM and UB
Environmental Worldview Environmental literacy
Total Mean ±SD N Total Mean ±SD N
Score Score
UM 816 54.4 0.3359 15 1119 55.95 0.3283 15

UB 824 54.93 0.1877 15 1151 57.55 0.2559 15

From the Table 1, the mean between UM and UB is significantly different. From that
different result, we can compare the environmental world view and environmental literacy
between UM and UB. We can see in the table 1, that mean for environmental worldview and
literacy in UB is more highly than UM.
Table 2. Comparison between UM and UB about environmental worldview
t-stat t-table
-0.25445872 2,04840714179524

From table 2, we get the t-test to compare the environmental worldview between UM
and UB. The t-stat is -0.25445872 < t-table (0.05. sig. two tail)2,04840714179524. So, there is not
significant becouse the t-stat is smaller than t-table. There is no comparison between UM and
UB about their environmental worldview.
Table 3. Comparison between UM and UB about environmental literacy
t-stat t-table
-0.55929195 2,04840714179524

From table 3, we get the t-stat to compare the environmental literacy between UM and
UB. The t-stat is -0.55929195 < t-table (0.05. sig. two tail)2,04840714179524. . So, there is not
significant because the t-stat is smaller than t-table. There is no comparison between UM and
UB about their environmental literacy.
Table 4. Correlation between UM and UB about environmental worldview
Correlation t-table
0.61264 2,04840714179524

From table 4, we get the correlation score to know about the correlation about the
environmental worldview between UM and UB. We used Ms.Excel 2017 to count the
correlation score. The correlation is 0.61264< t-table (0.05. sig. two tail) 2,04840714179524. So,
there is not significant because the t-score is smaller than t-table. We can said that there is no
correlation between UM and UB about environmental worldview. The value correlation
environmental worldview between Universitas Negeri Malang and Universitas Brawijaya
show value 0,61264 its strong.
Table 5. Correlation between UM and UB about environmental literacy
Correlation t-table
0.91709 2,04840714179524

From table 5, we get the correlation score to know about the correlation about the
environmental literacy between UM and UB. We used Ms.Excel 2017 to count the
correlation score. The correlation is 0.91709 < t-table (0.05. sig. two tail)2,04840714179524. So,
there is not significant becouse the t-score is smaller than t-table. We can said that there is no
correlation between UM and UB about environmental literacy. The value correlation
environmental literacy between Universitas Negeri Malang and Universitas Brawijaya show
value 0,91709 its very strong.
DISCUSSION
In this research we get the data of correlation and comparison between UM and UB of
Environmental Worldview and Environmental Literacy. The data from UM students show
that the score of UM Environmental Worlview student is 816, mean is 54.4, and standard
deviation is 0.3359. The data from UM students show that the score of UM Environmental
Literacy student is 1119, mean is 55.95, and standard deviation is 0.3283.
However, data from UB students show that the score of UB Environmental Worlview
student is 824, mean is 54.93, and standard deviation is 0.1877. The data from UB students
show that the score of UM Environmental Literacy student is 1151, mean is 57.55, and
standard deviation is 0.2559. The value of them show that UB has a higher value than UM.
Before, we test the correlation and comparison we test the data with normality test. The data
show the normality environmental worldview UM > UB (952 > 807). The data also show
normality environmental literacy UM < UB (748 < 996).
The correlation of environmental worldview and environmental literacy between Universitas
Negeri Malang Faculty of Economics and Universitas Brawijaya Faculty of Agriculture have
a strong and very strong relationship. The value of them are 0.91709 for environmental
worldview and 0.61264 for environmental literacy. It means that there are relationship
between Universitas Negeri Malang and Universitas Brawijaya. In the our result of
correlation envirommental worldview, it similary with the research from Aslan, Sağır and
Cansaran (2008). They have done research to adapt of “Attitude and Knowledge Scale
Towards Environment” into Turkish. The reability of the scale was found α=0.860. Also,
Okur and Yalçın Özdilek (2012) have developed an environmental attitude scale that
composed of 14 Likert type sentences. The reability of the scale was found α=0.733.
In our result of correlation envirommental literacy, it similary with Güven (2011),
Şama (2003), Okur Berberoğlu and Uygun (2012), Berberoğlu and Tosunoglu (1995),
Kaplowitz and Levine (2005), Özbebek-Tunç, Akdemir-Ömür and Düren (2012), Fernandez-
Manzanal, Rodriguez-Barreiro and Carrasquer (2007), Nisbet, Zelenski and Murphy, (2009),
Koç and Karatekin (2013) and Pe’er, Goldman and Yavetz (2007) have done research
(either by developing a new scale or adaptation of an original scale) to determine the
environmental attitude or behaviour of university students. In literature considering the
reliability of scales which were developed to determine the environmental literacy were
ranged between 0.70 and 0.89. In this aspect the ELSA can be use to determine the
environmental literacy of adults. In view of it’s important to raise the next generation by
adults who have awareness that environmental conscious, this scale should be contribute the
literature.
The comparison of environmental worldview and environmental literacy between
Universitas Negeri Malang Faculty of Economics and Universitas Brawijaya Faculty of
Agriculture have no significant. Because, the value of t-test smaller than t-table.It means that
the knowledge and literacy of each department are same. That happen because we just have
little samples.

CONCLUSION
The correlation of environmental worldview and environmental literacy between
Universitas Negeri Malang Faculty of Economics and Universitas Brawijaya Faculty of
Agriculture have a strong and very strong relationship. It means that there are relationship
between Universitas Negeri Malang and Universitas Brawijaya.
The comparison of environmental worldview and environmental literacy between
Universitas Negeri Malang Faculty of Economics and Universitas Brawijaya Faculty of
Agriculture have no significant. It means that the knowledge and literacy of each department
are same. That happen because we just have little samples.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To our lecturer of English for Biology State University of Malang , Mr. Dr. H. Sueb,
M. Kes who always teach us to make an article better.
REFERENCES

Amara, T. Brook. 2001. Conservation Psychology. Population and Environmental

Psychology Bulletin.2(27):1-23

Aslan, O., Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş., & Cansaran, A. 2008. Çevre tutum ölçeği uyarlanması ve
ilköğretim öğrencilerinin çevre tutumlarının belirlenmesi [The adaptation of
environmental attitude scale and determination of primary school students’
environmental attitutes]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 25, 283 -295.

Atabek-Yigit, E., Koklukaya, N., Yavuz, M & Demirhan, E. 2014. Development and
Validation of Environmental Literacy Scale for Adults (Elsa).Journal of Baltic
Science Education.Vol.13, No. 3, pp. 425-435

Berberoglu, G., & Tosunoglu, C. 1995. Exploratory and confrmatory factor analyses of an
environmental attitude scale (EAS) for Turkish University students. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 26 (3), 40-43.

Boyd, W.E., den Exter, K.A., Christidis, L., Lloyd, D.J. 2013. Current issues in
environmental management in Australia: what do people think?. Coolabah.Vol 10,
pp. 31-50

Cochrane, A. (2007). Environmental ethics.The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[Online] Available: http://www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/ (November 19, 2017)

Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. (1978).The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed

measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education,
9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000).Measuring endorsement of the
new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-
442.

Fernandez-Manzanal, R., Rodriguez-Barreiro, L., & Carrasquer, J. 2007. Evaluation of

environmental attitudes: Analysis & results of a scale applied to university students.
Science Education, 91(6), 988-1009

Güven, E. & Aydoğdu, M. 2011. Determination of candidate science teachers’ knowledge

levels towards environmental problems. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,15,
2781–2784.
Güven, E. 2011. Çevre eğitiminde tahmin-gözlem-açıklama destekli proje tabanlı öğrenme
yönteminin farklı değişkenler üzerine etkisi ve yönteme ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri [The
effect of project based learning method supported by prediction- observation-
explanation on different variations in environmental education and students’ views
concerning this method]. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,
Ankara.

Huesemann, M. H. 2001. Can pollution problems be effectively solved by environmental

science andtechnology.An analysis of critical limitations.Journal of Ecological
Economics. 37, pp. 271–287

Huwart, J. Y. &Verdier, L. 2013.What is the impact of globalization on the environment, in

Economic Globalization: Origins and consequences, OECD Publishing. pp. 108-125

Kadafa, AdatiAyuba. 2012. Environmental Impacts of Oil Exploration and Explotion in the
Niger Delta of Nigeria.Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Environmental
& Earth Sciences.Vol 12 Issue 3, pp. 19-28

Kaplowitz, M. D., & Levine, R. 2005. How environmental knowledge measures up at a big
ten university. Environmental Education Research, 11 (2), 143-160.

Karatas, Abdullah. 2016. Environmental Impacts of Globalization and a Solution Proposal.

American International Journal of Contemporary Research.Vol 6, No 2, pp. 64-70

Koç, H., & Karatekin, K. 2013. Coğrafya öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlık
düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [An investigation into
geography teacher trainees’ environmental literacy levels with respect to various
variables]. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 28, 139-174.

Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., Murphy, S. 2009. The nature relatedness scale linking ındividuals’
connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 41 (5), 715-740.

Okur- Berberoğlu, E., Uygun, S. 2012. Çevre farkındalığı- çevre tutumu arasındaki ilişkinin
yapısal eşitlik modeli ile sınanması [Checking over relationship between
environmental awareness and environmental attitudes by structural equation
modelling]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 (2), 459-473.

Özbebek-Tunç, A., Akdemir-Ömür, G., Düren, Z. A. 2012. Çevresel farkındalık

[Environmental awareness]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi,
47, 227-246

Pe’er, S., Goldman, D., & Yavetz, B. 2007. Environmental literacy in teacher training:
attitudes, knowledge, and environmental behavior of beginning students. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 39 (1), 45-59.
Polit, D. F. 1996. Data analysis and statistics for nursing research. Stamford, CT: Appleton
& Lange. Roth, C. E. (1992)

Rideout, E. Bruce. The liberal arts and environmental awareness: Exploring endorsment of an
Environmental worldview in college students.International Journal of Environmental
& Science Education.Vol.9, pp. 59-76

Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American

Psychologist, 66(4), 303-314. doi: 10.1037/a0023235

UNESCO (1978).The Tbilisi Declaration: Final report ıntergovernmental conference on

environmental education. Organized by UNESCO in corporation with UNEP,
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/EE- Tbilisi_1977.(November 19, 2017)

Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. (2011).Public understanding of climate change in the United

States.American Psychologist, 66(4), 315-328. doi: 10.1037/a0023253

Attachment 1
Respondent in UM

Respondent in UB
Attachment 2

Table 1. Normality test environmental worldview UM

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

VAR00003

N 15

Normal Parametersa Mean 3.6267

Std. Deviation .33599

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .133

Positive .083

Negative -.133

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .517

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .952

a. Test distribution is Normal.

Table 2. Normality test environmental worldview UB

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

VAR00004
N 15

Normal Parametersa Mean 3.6622

Std. Deviation .18077

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .165

Positive .090

Negative -.165

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .640

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .807

a. Test distribution is Normal.

Table 3. Normality test environmental literacy UM

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

VAR00005

N 15

Normal Parametersa Mean 3.7300

Std. Deviation .32831

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .175

Positive .175

Negative -.128

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .677

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .748

a. Test distribution is Normal.

Table 4. Normality test environmental literacy UB

 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

VAR00006

N 15

Normal Parametersa Mean 3.8367

Std. Deviation .25598

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .106

Positive .106

Negative -.094

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .410

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .996

a. Test distribution is Normal.