FINDINGS
The present study aimed to find the efficacy of Environmental Studies course in
the Arts and Science colleges affiliated to Bharathidasan University at Tiruchirappalli.
It analyzed the factors influencing ecoliteracy (input variable), the mode of
implementation of environmental education (environment variable) and the ecoliteracy
level (output variables) of those who had taken the course.
5.1.1. FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES
1.
Research Hypothesis H1: There is significant difference in ecoliteracy among
the respondents of different colleges of Arts and Science at Tiruchirappalli
municipality.
Null Hypothesis for Research Hypothesis H1: There is no significant
difference in ecoliteracy among the respondents of different colleges of Arts
and Science at Tiruchirappalli municipality.
Statistical analysis by One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that
there is a significant difference in ecoliteracy among the respondents of
different colleges of Arts and Science at Tiruchirappalli municipality. Hence the
null hypothesis is rejected and the Research hypothesis H1 is accepted.
2.
Research Hypothesis H2: The stream of study influences the ecoliteracy of the
respondents.
Null Hypothesis for Research Hypothesis H2: The stream of study does not
influence the ecoliteracy of the respondents.
139
Statistical analysis by Student ‘t’ Test revealed that there is no significant
difference in ecoliteracy among respondents of arts and science stream. Hence
the Research Hypothesis H2 is rejected and Null Hypothesis for Research
Hypothesis H2 is accepted.
3.
Research Hypothesis H3 : The gender of the students influences the ecoliteracy
of the respondents.
Null Hypothesis for Research Hypothesis H3: The gender of the students does
not influence the ecoliteracy of the respondents.
Statistical analysis by Student ‘t’ Test revealed that there is no significant
difference in ecoliteracy between the two genders. Hence the Research
Hypothesis H3 is rejected and Null Hypothesis for Research Hypothesis H3 is
accepted.
4.
Research Hypothesis H4 :
The type of residence the students are from
influences the ecoliteracy of the respondents.
Null Hypothesis for Research Hypothesis H4: The type of residence the
students are from does not influence the ecoliteracy of the respondents.
Statistical analysis by Student ‘t’ Test revealed that there is no significant
difference in ecoliteracy between the rural and urban respondents. Hence the
Research Hypothesis H4 is rejected and Null Hypothesis for Research
Hypothesis H4 is accepted.
5.
Research Hypothesis H5 : The Environmental Studies course exerts an
influence on the ecoliteracy of the respondents.
140
Null Hypothesis for Research Hypothesis H5: The Environmental Studies
course does not influence on the ecoliteracy of the respondents.
Statistical analysis by Paired Sample T Test revealed that is a significant
difference in ecoliteracy between those who had taken and had not taken the
course. Hence the Research Hypothesis H5 is accepted and is Null Hypothesis
for Research Hypothesis H5 rejected.
The rejection of Research Hypothesis H2, H3 and H4 implies the influence of
course Environmental Studies. The acceptance of the Research Hypothesis H1and H5
further confirms the influence of the course Environmental Studies.
5.1.2. FINDINGS RELATED TO INPUT VARIABLES
The socio demographic input variables chosen for the study has effected the
ecoliteracy as follows:
i.
College: All the colleges reveal low to moderate ecoliteracy. None of the
colleges revealed high ecoliteracy. There is significant difference in ecoliteracy
among the respondents of different colleges. This implies disparity in
implementation Environmental Studies course. There is no difference between
government and private colleges. However Aided autonomous colleges reveal
higher ecoliteracy compared to self financing non autonomous colleges.
ii.
Stream of study: There is no significant difference in ecoliteracy among
respondents of arts and science stream.
iii.
Gender: There is no significant difference in ecoliteracy between the two
genders.
141
iv.
Residence: There is no significant difference in ecoliteracy between the rural
and urban respondents.
There is no significant difference in ecoliteracy level between the genders,
residences and streams of study. The fact that there is no significant disparity in
environmental knowledge pertaining to gender, residence and stream of study asserts
the influence of the course and the course has equally influenced the awareness level
with regard to gender, residence and stream of study. However there is significant
difference in ecoliteracy among the respondents of different colleges; this indicates that
the teaching learning practices vary significantly and the educational institutes play an
important role in imparting environmental knowledge. The college which taught the
course with Environmental Science teachers outscored the other colleges signifying the
importance of qualified environmental educators. The study revealed low to moderate
ecoliteracy. This implies that the teaching learning environment has not been
implemented appropriately.
5.1.3. FINDINGS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES
v.
Level of integration: The course is taught for one or two semesters but the
condensation of teaching learning period less than the stipulated hours of 50
hours and non inclusion of field works has resulted in poor level of ecoliteracy.
This signifies poor level of integration of the course and has resulted in poor
output.
vi.
Teaching practices: Theory-practice gap and lack of field works have been
reported which has contributed to low ecoliteracy. This is due to poor attitude of
the educators owing to Non environmental science background.
142
vii.
Course content: The curriculum is wide-ranging; but certain topics as
components of environment and local biodiversity are not mentioned and
certain topics such as Global Warming and other environmental problems,
watershed management are repetitions; some topics such as AIDS, women and
child welfare are unrelated topics resulting in extensive curriculum.
viii.
Assessments: Most of the colleges enrich the students with assignments and
seminars and conduct tests prior to the final examination. Assessments are done
periodically before the final examination. The results of the colleges which
show 99-100% passes are inconsistent with the present study which showed
only low ecoliteracy. This signifies issues in evaluation pattern.
The significant differences in ecoliteracy among the colleges demonstrate the
implications of teaching practices. The course being entirely taught by Environmental
Science teachers and conducting regular teaching classes and continuously assessing
them would have contributed to higher ecoliteracy at the college which has scored the
highest score. Consequently the lower scores (41.7%) could be consequence of not
appropriately implementing the course.
An in-depth analysis revealed more shortcomings in the modes of
implementation. In all the colleges the teaching learning hours have not been followed
as had been stipulated by the UGC; field works had seldom been conducted. In most of
the colleges the course is taught by non environmental sciences teachers. The hopeful
side is that the course is reinforced by assignments and intermediary assessments and
the results from final assessments reveal that more than 99 - 100% of the overall
students of most of the colleges have successfully cleared the exams. However this is in
143
contrary to the present study where the respondents have scored low; which means that
has resulted in poor output.
5.1.4. FINDINGS RELATED TO OUTPUT VARIABLE
ix.
Ecoliteracy: The level of ecoliteracy is low (mean score-16.19) even after
taking the course Environmental Studies.
The results show that the ecoliteracy level is low even after taking the course
and there are more low scores (58.3%) than high scores (41.7%). However there is
significant difference in ecoliteracy between those who had and had not taken the
course. The higher level of ecoliteracy among those who had taken the course confirms
the influence of the environmental studies course on the ecoliteracy of the respondents
but the fact that the ecoliteracy level is not high signifies that the course has impacted
to a greater extent.
The students not only reveal poor overall ecoliteracy, their knowledge is only at
nominal level. i.e. the students are familiar with common environmental terms and
global
environmental
issues
and
simple
environmental
concepts;
but
less
knowledgeable on specific terms, local biodiversity and in-depth understanding of the
ecological concepts. The lack of understanding on cause-effect relationship and
disability to recognize and manage the environmental problems is also evident. They
are yet to achieve functional and operational level of ecoliteracy.
The present study has given a clear picture of the effectiveness of the
environmental studies course which is not up to the mark and the three variables – the
input variables, environment variable and output variable are interrelated; i.e. the output
is dependent on both the input and environment variables. Hence The I-E-O model of
144
Austin is proved. In this case the poor ecoliteracy is because of poor implementation of
the course including low level of integration of the course, inefficient teaching
practices, extensive course content and poor attitude. This signifies that for the
Environmental Studies course to be efficient the input variables and output variables
should be implemented appropriately.
The fact that the course has not heightened the awareness to a greater extent and
the rationale behind it are poor input and environment variables the study recommends
and emphasizes the implementation of the course more efficiently unless which the
efforts so far put forth in the form of economic, temporal, spatial and intellectual inputs
would prove futile. This implies that the course has to be strengthened and
implemented systematically and more appropriately to produce environmental literate
citizen to lead a life of sustenance and quality. To achieve this effectively here are few
suggestions.
145