Values Based Learning for Environmentally Friendly Living: A Study in ...

Peer Reviewed Article

Journal of College & Character

VOLUME 11, No. 4, November 2010

Values-Based Learning for Environmentally Friendly Living: A Study in an Institution of Higher Learning in India1 N. Sivakumar, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning Ravikumar Thyagarajan, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning2 Abstract This article presented findings on educating students in environmentally friendly living in a values-based education system in India. The study was based on a survey conducted among the students of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, a values-based deemed university. After providing the conceptual foundations for environmentally friendly living, the authors used the results of the survey to present components involved in the learning process and to discuss implications of the study that support the importance of values-based education in learning for environmentally friendly living.

O

ne of the biggest problems in today’s world is the lack of environmental consciousness. Especially in developing countries, poor environmental protection has led to several problems, which include unsafe and inadequate water supplies, inadequate provision for sanitation and solid waste disposal (including toxic waste), overcrowding, hazardous working conditions, and ineffective pollution control (Hardoy & Satterthwaite, 2006). In a country like India, environmental issues are becoming more serious by the day. Approximately 30% of India’s gross agricultural output is lost every year due to soil degradation, poor land management, and counterproductive irrigation. Environmental mismanagement and overfishing have damaged its coastline. A dramatic drop in the national water tables has affected India’s water supply. Because the diesel used in India contains much more sulfur than European diesel, air pollution remains a major problem. It has been estimated that almost 5.3 million hectares of forest have been destroyed in the last five decades since independence. One of the main reasons for this devastation is the lack of proper environmental education (Wakefield, 2009). Therefore, based on a directive from the Honorable Supreme Court of India, the University Grants Commission prepared and implemented a six-month compulsory course in environmental studies in all universities and colleges in India (University Grants Commission, 2004).

1

The authors humbly dedicate the paper to Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, The Revered Chancellor of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, Prasanthinilayam, India. 2 N. Sivakumar is senior lecturer in the department of commerce at the Brindavan Campus of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, India. He has international publications in the areas of values-based management and values education. He can be reached at [email protected]. Ravikumar Thyagarajan is reader in the department of chemistry at the Brindavan Campus of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, India. He has publications in the area of values-based education. He can be reached at ravi.chem. [email protected].

JCC

© NASPA 2010

http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/

doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707

2 Journal of College and Character


Environmentally Friendly Living and the Higher Education System—A Review of Linkages

T

he history of environmental education reveals a close connection between changing concerns about the environment and its associated problems and the way in which environmental education is defined and promoted (Tilbury, 1995). Environmentally friendly living refers to all types of behaviors that conserve nature and its resources. It is a lifestyle that promotes respect for nature and encourages harmonious living with the environment (Ravikumar & Sivakumar, 2008). Environmentally friendly living has a close linkage with the education system. This connection is enshrined in the purposes of environmental education stated by Stapp as early as 1969: “Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution” (Stapp et al., 1969, p. 34). The higher education and university system can also be linked to environmentally friendly behaviors. Shen and Saijo (2008) observed from their study that a higher education level has a positive correlation to environmental concern. Similarly, Lan (2008) analyzed the ecological environment in higher vocational academies and noted that educational ecologicalization can improve ecological consciousness among students. Leiberman and Hoody (1998) supported the idea of the positive impact of engaging students in environmental issues by means of the university curriculum. Due to the positive linkages between university education and environmental friendliness, several initiatives have been undertaken to create learning environments that promote environmental consciousness. Students at a graduate level can learn environmental friendliness through projects and dissertations (Hess & Timén, 2008). Universities can inculcate environmental friendliness in students through in-house activities such as greening the campus, creating sustainable communities, and global integration of localities (Oloyede, Ayorinde, & Olade, 2010; Ravikumar & Sivakumar, 2008). Thus the university education system is a fertile ground to learn environmentally friendly living. This article is an endeavor in the direction of understanding environmentally friendly living in a values-based education system.

Components of Learning for Environmentally Friendly Living—A Conceptual Framework

A

t one time, many individuals questioned the value of environmental friendliness and sustainable developmentas useful concepts for discussion (Beckerman, 1994). Later, these concepts were the basis of the formulation of a coherent philosophy of environmental education (Bonnett, 1999) and now serve as context in balancing economics and environmental friendliness (Rosenkranz & Wichtmann, 2005). Dunlap and Van Liere (2008) described that the “new environmental paradigm” has gained considerable popularity in academic and intellectual circles. Several prerequisites have been proposed for inculcating environmental consciousness and environmentally friendly values. Chaudhuri et al. (2008) indicated that a supportive and collaborative learning environment is necessary for learning environmentally friendly behaviors. Tanner (1980) highlighted the need for sharing significant life experiences. Burgess, Limb, and Harrison (1987) stated that environmental values can be effectively learned in small groups. Davies (2001) tried to evolve community-based approaches to learning environmental values. Satterfield (2001) suggested that morally resonant, image-based, and narrative-style elicitation of environment-related messages is most useful in spreading environmental values. Karpiak and Baril (2008) indicated that cognitive moral reasoning is an effective approach to increasing the concern for the environment in college students.

doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707


© NASPA 2010

JCC

Values-Based Learning 3

Scholars have also discussed the various characteristics of learning for environmentally friendly living. While Norton and Steinemann (2001) stressed the importance of self-reliance, Godfrey (2002) suggested the importance of resources conservation. Other characteristics include avoiding wasteful consumption (Baudrillard, 1998), living simply (Etzioni, 1988), respecting nature (Taylor, 1986), and assuming public responsibility (Wood, 1991). The above studies thus offer support that several components need to be integrated for effective learning of environmentally friendly values and behaviors.

Objective and Setting of the Study

F

or the purpose of determining ways in which students in a values-based education environment learn environmentally friendly behaviors, a survey was conducted among the students of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, India (a values-based institution for higher learning, with a student enrollment of more than 1,000 and an enrollment of around 300–350 students in each of its three campuses). The Institute subscribes to the philosophy of Educare. Educare means bringing out the latent qualities and values from the core of one’s inner being (Baba, 2009). Educare is the philosophy of manifesting the inherent goodness and spirituality of students through the process of education. The Institute aims at imparting integral education because the development of moral and intellectual character is considered the primary objective of education. The philosophy of education of the Institute is based on the need to provide students’ development of mind and heart. In practical terms, the programs offered by the Institute seek to combine the best of both ancient traditions and modern advancements. While the foundations of education in the Institute are what are termed “eternal human values,” the superstructure relates to today’s society. The student’s life in the Institute revolves basically around the 3 D’s—Discipline, Duty, and Devotion. Students are encouraged to give full expression to their latent talents in sports, speaking, singing, painting, and dancing, and to participate in community-oriented activities. Harmonious living and the spirit of cooperation as well as selflessness are particularly promoted (Ravikumar & Sivakumar, 2008). The environmental science course is offered to all students of the first year undergraduate program in the Institute over two semesters based on the pattern suggested by the UGC. The course covers all standard topics such as natural resources, biodiversity and environmental degradation, and problems and solutions. However, based on the education philosophy of the Institute, an important component of the course is the appreciation of environmental values, environmental ethics, and values-based solutions to environmental problems. Thus the course encourages students to learn environmentally friendly behaviors. Students in the Institute also take several other courses on human values, whose goals are to help inculcate in them the motivation to be environmentally friendly. Students are offered the opportunity to learn the basic principles of environmental friendliness through a practice network on the proper use of resources as enunciated by the Revered Chancellor of the university (Baba, 2002):

. . . .

Don’t Don’t Don’t Don’t

waste waste waste waste

time. Time waste is life waste. food. Food is god. money. Misuse of money is evil. energy. Everything is energy.

These tenets are collectively called the philosophy of “ceiling on desires.”

JCC

© NASPA 2010


doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707



Self-reliance activities are a unique innovation of the Institute to promote empowerment among students. In these sets of activities, students are educated to manage various aspects of campus life. These include managing the consumer cooperative society, the dispensary, the bakery, the kitchen, the photo-copying facility, telecommunications, and audio-visual aids and maintenance of the campus in areas such as carpentry, plumbing, and electrical repairs. These enrich the students and teach them the importance of various resources and their conservation. Thus self-reliance enhances environmental consciousness and creates environment-friendly citizens. The schedule in the university is well structured from 5:00 am to 10:00 pm, with specified time periods for studying, playing, maintaining campus responsibilities, praying, and doing personal work. As the schedule is well structured, students are encouraged to learn environmentally friendly living by avoiding time and energy wastage. “Biophilia” is a term coined to describe humanity’s innate affinity for the natural world (Kellert & Wilson, 1995). This affinity to nature is cultivated among students in the university through vanamahotsav programs (in which students are encouraged to nurture trees) and through service activities held in the cradle of nature in villages. The overall learning environment in the Institute provides the foundation for environmentally friendly living.

Research Methodology

P

rimary data were collected from students of all three years of the undergraduate programs offered at one of the three campuses, namely Brindavan campus (situated at Bangalore, India, and with an enrollment of around 300 students), of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning for this research. A questionnaire was prepared to study the environmentally friendly living habits of the students and the components involved in the learning process of environmental friendliness. The issues covered in the questionnaire were based on conceptual foundations, the topics in the environmental science course, and the educational ambience provided in the Institute. The questionnaire consisted of 26 statements with responses on a 5-point Likert scale as follows:

1 2 3 4 5

–I –I –I –I –I

strongly disagree with the statement. disagree with the statement. am neutral, i.e., neither agree nor disagree with the statement. agree with the statement. strongly agree with the statement.

The preliminary questionnaire containing 29 statements was pretested on a convenient sample of 30 students (around 10% of the total enrollment of the campus). After the removal of three statements, Cronbach’s alpha of the sample responses was 0.60, representing reasonably high internal consistency. The sample responses were also used to modify the question tenor or content. The final questionnaire was administered to all the students of the campus. Of the 298 questionnaires that were distributed, 264 completed questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of approximately 90% (see Table 1). The data were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software. The various statements that were included in the final questionnaire along with the related descriptive psychometrics of the collected data are presented in Table 2. Factor analysis was performed to identify the principal factors or components involved in learning for environmentally friendly living. Ten factors were identified having eigen values of

doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707


© NASPA 2010

JCC


more than 1, which cumulatively explained 61% of the variance in the data. The 10 factors were rotated using the varimax rotation method with the Kaiser normalization process, which converged in 12 iterations. Variables in each factor having positive and negative factor loadings equal to or greater than 0.50 were identified as aspects making up that factor component. Each factor was also appropriately labeled based on its composition.

Components of Learning for Environmentally Friendly Living—Survey Results

T

he components of environmentally friendly living as identified from the study are presented in Table 3 along with the percentage of variance explained by each factor.

Conservation of Resources and Respect for Nature Most students in the survey indicated that they had learned from living on the campus to “respect food” and “spend money judiciously.” Students also reported that they had learned to conserve resources “like water and electric power.” Students responded that they were not interested in wasting public resources for “personal upkeep.” Most students also reported that they did not feel it was right to “consume resources wastefully.” The results of the survey point to two examples of conservation: Students reported that if “they purchased snacks and did not like the taste,” they did not feel “it was right to throw them away.” Students also said that they did not “feel it was correct to overeat” when they were “satiated.” In addition, students reported that they were prepared to participate in environmentally friendly activities that may not have directly concerned them, and that they were interested in participating in programs that conserved the “natural beauty of the campus.” They also said that they developed “admiration for nature,” which taught them to live in harmony with nature and “preserve the biodiversity of the campus.” Campus Environment Students indicated that they were filled with “enthusiasm” on the campus, felt “relaxed,” and did not feel that campus life drained “their energy.” They reported that the “daily schedule at the campus was packed with purposeful activity,” they had learned to “manage time judiciously,” and they had used their energies “purposefully.” Students also reported that they had been encouraged to be reflective about the use of time so that it was spent purposefully. Spirituality Foundations Students reported that they were constantly reminded of “the presence of divinity in the surroundings in the campus,” and that environmental education helped them become aware of spiritual values.

Implications and Conclusion

T JCC

he authors of this article argued, based on theoretical and empirical research, that educating students for environmentally friendly living involves a highly integrated learning process

© NASPA 2010


doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707



with an emphasis on the cultivation of environmental values. The study has several implications for educational institutions interested in promoting environmental friendliness living among students. These include the following: . Creating a supportive environment and practice network for learning environmental consciousness. . Encouraging and recognizing students who take up public responsibility in resources conservation. . Making the learning environment stress-free for the students. . Emphasizing resources conservation and avoidance of wasteful consumption. . Motivating students to be self-reliant and “non-parasitic” in their behaviors. . Helping students create a daily schedule of their activities to avoid time wastage. . Promoting activities that create a bond between students and nature and thereby increase their respect and adoration for nature. . Most importantly, basing all learning on spiritual foundations so that environmentally friendly activities are motivated by the inner spirit.

References Baba, B.S.S.S. (2002). Ceiling on desires—I. In Sri Sathya Sai speaks Volume 16 ( pp. 16–20). Prasanthinilayam: Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust, Publications Division. Baba, B.S.S.S. (2009). Develop educare and be united. In Sri Sathya Sai speaks Volume 41 ( pp. 133–144). Prasanthinilayam: Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust, Publications Division. Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and concerns. London: Sage Publications. Beckerman, W. (1994). ‘Sustainable development’: Is it a useful concept? Environmental Values, 3, 191–209. Bonnett, M. (1999). Education for sustainable development: A coherent philosophy for environmental education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 29, 313–324. Burgess, J., Limb, M., & Harrison, C.M. (1987). Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: 1. Theory and practice. Environment and Planning A, 20, 309–326. Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Joshi, M., Terrell, E., Higgs, F., Aleven, V., & Penstein, C. (2008). Learning intelligent tutoring systems. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Davies, A. (2001). What silence knows—Planning, public participation and environmental values. Environmental Values, 10, 77–102. Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K.D. (2008). The “New Environmental Paradigm”. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 19–28. Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension—Towards a new economics. New York: The Free Press. Hardoy, J.E., & Satterthwaite, D. (2006). Environmental problems of third world cities: A global issue ignored? Public Administration and Development, 11, 341–361. Hess, E., & Timén, P. (2008). Environmental friendliness as a marketing strategy. Retrieved from http://www.projectsparadise.com/environmental-friendliness-marketing-strategy/ Karpiak, C.P., & Baril, G.L. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 203–208. Kellert, S.R., & Wilson, E.O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lan, J. (2008). A discussion on the ecological balance and sustainable development of higher vocational education. Journal of Sustainable Development, 1, 48–50.

doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707


© NASPA 2010

JCC


Leiberman, G.A., & Hoody, L.L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning (A report of the State Education and Environment Roundtable). Poway: Science Wizards. Norton, B.G., & Steinemann, A.C. (2001). Environmental values and adaptive management. Environmental Values, 10, 473–506. Oloyede, I.O., Ayorinde, K.L., & Olade, F.A. (2010). Greening the campus environment: The University of Ilorin experience. Retrieved from https://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/ ioloyede/greening%20campus%20-professors%20Oloyede,Ayorinde.doc Ravikumar, T., & Sivakumar, N. (2008). Learning for environmentally friendly living—A case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Ethics Education (ICEEE), Varanasi, India, November 16–17, 2008. Rosenkranz, J., & Wichtmann, A. (2005). Balancing economics and environmental friendliness —The challenge for supercritical coal-fired power plants with highest steam parameters in the future. Retrieved from http://www.energy.siemens.com Satterfield, T. (2001). In search of value literacy: Suggestions for the elicitation of environmental values. Environmental Values, 10, 331–359. Shen, J., & Saijo, T. (2008). Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: Evidence from Shanghai data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 42–50. Stapp, W.B., Bennet, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., & Havlick, S. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 30–31. Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11, 20–24. Taylor, P.W. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics studies in moral, political, and legal philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1, 195–212. University Grants Commission. (2004). The vision of environmental studies curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.ugc.ac.in Wakefield, O. (2009). The environmental issues in India. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/ ?The-Environmental-Issues-in-India&id=2146109 Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

TABLE 1. Profile of the Sample.

Detail Number of respondents % of total Humanities stream (%) Sciences stream (%) Average age (years) Number of years of formal education completed Number of years of exposure to values-based education in the Institute

JCC

© NASPA 2010

1st year undergraduate

2nd year undergraduate

3rd year undergraduate

Total

100 38 51 49 19 13

92 35 55 45 20 14

72 27 52 48 21 15

264 100 53 47 19.89 13.89

1

2

3

1.89


doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707



TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics. Code Statement Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26

Mean Median Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis Jarque–Bera

In the campus, I have developed admiration for nature. In the campus, I have learned to spend money judiciously. In the campus, I have learned to give respect to food. I have learned in the campus to conserve water and electric power. I feel it is important to preserve the biodiversity on the campus. The daily schedule at the campus is packed with purposeful activity. Chanting prayer of offering food to god, before partaking food reminds me to ensure that I should not waste any food. My day on the campus fills me with energy and enthusiasm. I am constantly reminded of the presence of divinity in the surroundings (nature) in the campus. The campus education has taught me to give appropriate importance to money in my life. In the campus I tend to spend more money compared to when I am away from the campus. I am interested in participating in programs that conserve the natural beauty of the campus. When public resources in the campus are being wasted, it is my personal responsibility to control it. When I buy snacks in the campus and do not like its taste, it is right to waste it away. I feel it is right to overeat even when I am satiated fully and have already tasted enough. Living in the campus has taught me to manage time judiciously. I feel it is right to waste public resources in my personal upkeep. Self-reliance activities teach me to utilize my energies purposefully. Life in the campus drains my energy. The campus life has taught me to live harmoniously with nature. I feel very relaxed in the campus even though completely engaged in purposeful activity. One of the important lessons taught by selfreliance activities in the campus is time management. In the campus there are many options where I can spend money excessively. I do not learn any lessons from self-reliance activities. I feel it is right to allocate some time everyday just to be relaxed. In the campus I spend a lot of time on extracurricular activities.

doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707

4.07

4

0.99

− 1.03

3.78

53.06

3.61

4

1.00

− 0.35

2.72

6.25

4.01

4

0.92

− 0.77

3.21

26.84

3.94

4

0.97

− 0.97

3.88

49.89

4.44

5

0.87

− 1.64

5.60

191.89

4.23

4

0.90

− 1.29

4.76

107.42

3.66

4

1.11

− 0.50

2.40

14.76

3.58

4

0.95

− 0.48

3.26

10.97

3.99

4

0.94

− 0.81

3.48

31.43

3.94

4

0.99

− 0.84

3.39

32.54

2.51

2

1.30

0.33

1.92

17.79

4.25

4

0.84

− 1.06

3.98

60.05

4.61

5

0.75

− 2.68

11.71

1150.75

2.25

2

1.23

0.82

2.80

30.26

2.38

2

1.13

0.52

2.45

15.27

4.04

4

0.95

− 1.17

4.48

83.97

1.39

1

0.90

2.69

9.88

838.95

3.61

4

1.08

− 0.50

2.71

12.05

2.30 3.82

2 4

1.12 1.09

0.68 − 0.83

2.87 3.30

20.52 31.35

3.14

3

1.26

− 0.18

1.99

12.57

3.64

4

1.21

− 0.54

2.33

17.66

3.00

3

1.30

0.02

1.95

12.09

1.95

2

1.12

1.11

3.42

55.87

3.29

3

1.31

− 0.39

2.08

15.90

3.47

4

1.08

− 0.54

2.75

13.37


© NASPA 2010

JCC


TABLE 3. Components of Environmentally Friendly Living. Component Supportive learning environment Self-reliance activities Resources conservation Stress-free living Time and energy conservation Nature adoration Public responsibility Spiritual foundations Avoidance of wasteful consumption Extracurricular activities

JCC

© NASPA 2010

% of variance explained

Cumulative %

8.92 7.15 6.36 6.14 5.88 5.60 5.32 5.29 5.00 4.72

8.92 16.08 22.44 28.58 34.46 40.06 45.38 50.67 55.67 60.40


doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1707