View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Undergraduate Engineering Students' Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Undergraduate Engineering Students' Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes
Language: English
Authors: Dyehouse, Melissa, Weber, Nicole, Fang, Jun, Harris, Constance, David, Ray, Hua, Inez, Strobel, Johannes
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2017 42(2):390-409.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2017
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: DRL0935174
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Resistance to Change, Undergraduate Students, Engineering Education, Student Attitudes, Knowledge Level, Environment, College Freshmen, Correlation, Sustainable Development, Student Surveys
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1052734
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: Engineering professional associations identified environmental sustainability as a key responsibility of the educated engineer. Data from national surveys of the general public demonstrate low environmental knowledge levels and a high level of resistance when it comes to environmental behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between first-year engineering students' environmental knowledge and attitudes and resistance to change (RtC). The authors administered instruments measuring RtC and environmental knowledge and attitudes to three groups (n = 3,169) of first-year engineering students in the fall semesters of 2008-2010. Students showed the highest mean scores on the Cognitive Rigidity subscale of RtC. Overall, weak, negative correlations were found between most RtC subscales and environmental knowledge/attitudes, meaning that students with higher RtC score lower overall on environmental knowledge and consider sustainable development less important. Findings can aid researchers and curriculum designers in understanding students' knowledge levels and the relationship between RtC factors and knowledge/attitudes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 50
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1127110
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFntQ84Hvb3Imiot207xDbMAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMhvyEt-B-N4Mk7WTQIBEICBm4isQkAaQ2WXR9X5UyqHPOTGUmQMUJNMt9VVmobNXS4IEOEKXHv8bO79zWp9rZtYjxwsXHY8AM89EEy2h5VdGFgEH0a5ki9YzWS41Fg12PXLKJpaaHvHr836tP-UO4U5E_O3-N_eylsqe-xO0A5cPNG9g-UuOLbkHqWZKDFC27tZpA0-eJO50AT9CBn17WQzHKR9M8OihwVVyxyX
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0120932551;she01feb.17;2019Mar19.12:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0120932551-1">Examining the relationship between resistance to change and undergraduate engineering students’ environmental knowledge and attitudes. </title> <p>Engineering professional associations identified environmental sustainability as a key responsibility of the educated engineer. Data from national surveys of the general public demonstrate low environmental knowledge levels and a high level of resistance when it comes to environmental behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between first-year engineering students' environmental knowledge and attitudes and resistance to change (RtC). The authors administered instruments measuring RtC and environmental knowledge and attitudes to three groups (n = 3169) of first-year engineering students in the fall semesters of 2008–2010. Students showed the highest mean scores on the Cognitive Rigidity subscale of RtC. Overall, weak, negative correlations were found between most RtC subscales and environmental knowledge/attitudes, meaning that students with higher RtC score lower overall on environmental knowledge and consider sustainable development less important. Findings can aid researchers and curriculum designers in understanding students' knowledge levels and the relationship between RtC factors and knowledge/attitudes.</p> <p>Keywords: resistance to change; environmental knowledge; environmental attitudes; first-year engineering undergraduates; engineering education; environmental sustainability</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Engineering as a profession is in a unique position when it comes to ecological and environmental issues, with the potential to provide relief or even additional damage to our natural resources (Graedel and Allenby [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). In fact, there is increasing awareness in most fields of engineering that environmental constraints are embedded in almost every societal challenge. To this end, several professional engineering societies, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]), the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]), and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]), have identified sustainability as a key quality or ethical responsibility of all engineers. For example, ABET's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]) 2012–2013 accreditation rules require all engineering disciplines to include environmental and sustainability issues as constraints in design (<emph>criterion three</emph>). Furthermore, the increased need for engineers who are skilled in addressing a broad range of engineering issues with environmental implications has been identified in some of the National Academy of Engineering's (NAE) 'Grand Challenges of Engineering' ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref7">32</reflink>]). Thus, making explicit the connections of engineering to sustainability and the responsibility of all engineers to understand sustainability concepts is a core characteristic of engineering (Cardella et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]). Although interpretations of the concept of sustainability are varied and contested (Summers, Childs, and Corney [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]), sustainable development is most often identified in terms of the integration of environmental, economic, and social dimensions (Summers, Childs, and Corney [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref10">45</reflink>]). For the purposes of this paper, we focus on the environmental component of sustainability.</p> <p>There have been increased efforts to integrate sustainability concepts into the undergraduate engineering curriculum. For example, sustainability concepts have been introduced into existing engineering courses (e.g. Aurandt and Butler [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]; Bhandari, Ong, and Steward [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]), new courses with a sustainable engineering focus have been developed (e.g. Aurandt and Butler [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Wolcott et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref14">49</reflink>]), and various approaches such as service learning have been taken with regard to teaching sustainability to engineering undergraduates (Dvorak et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). Furthermore, there have been calls to integrate sustainability more broadly throughout higher education, despite barriers to implement these changes in practice (Cotton et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). While most of these efforts have been evaluated by measuring students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes, other potential underlying factors, such as resistance to change (RtC), are rarely addressed. Learning theories grounded in conceptual change emphasize the notion of 'troublesome' knowledge (Perkins [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>]) and that 'resistance is a natural and normal response to change' (Bovey and Hede [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>], 372) with individuals varying in their resistance (Oreg [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref19">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The concept of RtC referred to in this paper stems from Oreg's ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]) research that formulated a generalized concept of RtC based on an individual's personality. This model of RtC consists of four distinct factors of resistance: Routine Seeking, Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change, Cognitive Rigidity, and Short-term Focus.</p> <p>RtC has been widely studied in the field of management and organizational change (Oreg, Michel, and By [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]; Oreg, Vakola, and Armenakis [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]). Studies examining RtC using Oreg's model in the engineering education setting, however, are lacking. Although Oreg's model of RtC was developed from a workplace perspective, we use it in an academic context for this study because the essential behaviors that are measured are individual personality characteristics that could be applicable to many settings.</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between RtC and environmental knowledge and attitudes among first-year undergraduate engineering students. In this study, environmental issues refer to knowledge and understanding of the environment and sustainable development as based on Azapagic, Perdan, and Shallcross' ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]) study. Secondarily, we examined RtC as a construct of interest in this sample of students, as it has not been previously studied with undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, the research questions were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are first-year engineering students' baseline understanding and awareness of environmental issues and sustainable development, and what is their RtC?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the relationship between RtC and environmental knowledge and awareness?</item> <p></p> <item> How does RtC differ among first-year engineering students in terms of gender?</item> </ulist> <p>Understanding students' levels of environmental knowledge and attitudes in relation to RtC would assist educators in more effectively addressing sustainability in their curricula, in order to develop more effective methods of addressing knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral components. Additionally, knowledge about undergraduate engineering students' RtC and how RtC varies among subscales and demographic variables will add to the literature, which is scant, on this population of students and provide further insights into targeted curricula for engineering educators.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-3">Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120932551-4">Sustainability in engineering</hd> <p>Modern engineering educators have been charged with producing engineers whose professional skills extend beyond technical expertise and application; engineers are expected to work in a more socially responsible manner (NAE [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]; Galloway [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>]), especially now that environmental degradation and environmental awareness have moved to the forefront of pressing societal issues (Abdul-Wahab and Adbulraheem [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]; National Environmental Education Foundation [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]; Strobel et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]). Because engineers play such a pivotal role in the design of new products, many have called for undergraduate engineering programs to integrate sustainable design into the curriculum (such as Donnelly and Boyle [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]; Holmberg et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>]; Mulder [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]). McLennan ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>], 5) defined sustainable design as 'a design philosophy that seeks to maximize the quality of the built environment, while minimizing or eliminating the negative impact to the natural environment.'</p> <p>In order to address these gaps in undergraduate students' perspectives and knowledge about sustainable practice, many researchers have called for the need to incorporate more specific lessons involving sustainability into engineering coursework (such as, Abdullah [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]; Lamborn [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]; Nakajima and Vanderburg [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]) and have called for the study of sustainable design to begin in the engineering student's first year of study (Conlon [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]). This sentiment has been echoed by the National Science Board ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>], 15), which has called more specifically for university engineering programs to engage first-year engineering students in learning experiences that 'involve design, imagination, communication ... [that] is socially relevant' and helps students build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for practicing engineers.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-5">RtC</hd> <p>RtC is 'an expression of reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to change' (Block [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]). The earliest research on RtC originated in the field of organizational and industrial psychology, where RtC was conceptualized as situational, depending on the types of factors present in the workplace rather than on personality factors (Coch and French [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>]). RtC was also examined from a perspective of divergent thinking from the group mindset, or that of self-interest, that organizations sought to avoid (Waddell and Sohal [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref40">48</reflink>]). Later research in the organizational change literature focused on RtC as a more complex construct that could result from a variety of factors (e.g. Szabla [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although RtC originated in the psychology and organizational change fields, Dembo and Seli ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]) have studied students' RtC in academic situations. More specifically, Dembo and Seli ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]) examined the reasons why students resist changing their academic behaviors, focusing on a survey of four main explanations: I cannot change, I do not want to change, I do not know how to change, and I do not know what to change; results showed that the majority of students who had not changed their behaviors reported that they did not want to change.</p> <p>Although there is a lack of research on RtC in engineering education, valid and reliable instruments have been developed in the organizational change literature. For example, Oreg's ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]) RtC Scale was developed to formulate and directly measure 'a generalized disposition to resist change' (<reflink idref="bib680" id="ref45">680</reflink>) rather than correspond to any specific type of change. Applying this scale, Oreg ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref46">37</reflink>]) found that employees' scores were a predictor of affective as well as behavioral outcomes in a business setting.</p> <p>In the context of environmental sustainability, there is often a paradox of individuals holding positive sustainability attitudes while continuing to show personal negative environmental behaviors. Wray-Lake, Flanagan, and Osgood ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]) examined high school students' attitudes towards the environment and found that students believed that environmental protection was in the hands of consumers and the government, rather than being an individual responsibility. Additionally, the study's authors noted that youth do not feel that they are the primary resource in addressing environmental issues, and that these feelings were a result of the students thinking that issues such as climate change would not affect them personally in the future. Furthermore, students often encounter roadblocks when trying to alter their thoughts on environmental issues. They may resist change because of a disconnect with their life and the fact that they believe it is the government's responsibility to make the necessary changes to benefit the environment (Wray-Lake, Flanagan, and Osgood [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref48">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>From the perspective of learning about environmental sustainability in the context of engineering, Powers, DeWaters, and Venczel ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref49">42</reflink>]) have found that while students showed positive attitudes toward the environment, their personal behavior ratings did not reflect these attitudes. Similarly, Azapagic, Perdan, and Shallcross ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]) surveyed students and found that while they expressed a desire to learn more about sustainability, they did not feel personally responsible for these issues, instead believing that the responsibility belongs to future generations.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120932551-7">Design and procedures</hd> <p>The design of this exploratory study was cross-sectional and consisted of a baseline survey that was administered to three groups of first-year engineering students at a large, public university in the fall semester of 2008, 2009, and 2010. The survey was completed anonymously using Qualtrics software and demographic data were collected in a manner that no individual student could be identified by the researchers. Students in the 2008 and 2010 cohorts were asked to complete the survey as part of their homework in a required first-year engineering course; for the 2009 cohort, the survey was not included as part of students' homework, and therefore, the response rate was lower. The human subject review board at Purdue University approved the study.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-8">Participants</hd> <p>For the 2008 administration, a total of 1394 participants completed the surveys; of those, 285 students were female and 1109 were male. The majority of students were from the USA (<emph>n</emph> = 1250) in addition to 144 international students. For the year 2009, a total of 186 students completed the surveys; 27 students were female and 158 were male. The number of US students was 101 and there were 85 international students. Finally, for the 2010 year (<emph>n</emph> = 1589), 326 students were female and 1263 were male. The number of students from the USA was 1360; there were 223 international students and 18 unreported.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-9">Data sources</hd> <p>The baseline survey was administered using an online Qualtrics survey system, and consisted of several surveys administered at the same time:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Demographic information (e.g. sex, location of permanent residence, and prior coursework on sustainability).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>RtC Scale</emph>: The <emph>RtC Scale</emph> (Oreg [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]) originates from the field of organizational behavior, where Oreg ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref52">36</reflink>], 680) defined RtC as an 'individual's tendency to resist or avoid making changes, to de-value change generally, and to find change aversive across diverse contexts and types of change.' The RtC instrument is divided into four subscales: Routine Seeking (e.g. 'I prefer having a stable routine to experiencing changes in my life'), Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change (e.g. 'When things don't go according to plans, it stresses me out'), Cognitive Rigidity (e.g. 'I don't change my mind easily'), and Short-term Focus (e.g. 'When someone pressures me to change something, I tend to resist it even if I think the change may ultimately benefit me'). The wording of some items was changed to reflect a classroom, rather than workplace setting (e.g. from 'my boss' to 'my professor').</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Self-reported environmental knowledge and attitudes survey</emph> (Azapagic, Perdan, and Shallcross [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]): This survey assessed students' self-reported knowledge (awareness) about sustainable development in general and specific environmental topics in four areas: (i) environmental issues, (ii) environmental legislation, policy and standards, (iii) environmental tools, technologies, and approaches, and (iv) sustainable development. The survey also includes an item that asks students to rate the importance of sustainable development in different contexts (e.g. for you personally, for your country). For more information about the items, see the full survey in previous research (Strobel et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref54">44</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Environmental knowledge survey</emph>: A multiple-choice environmental knowledge survey was administered using items from the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF)/Roper Questions, 1997–2000 (Coyle [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]). All 12 items that were designed to tap basic environmental knowledge were used (see Table 1, this paper, or Appendix 1 in Coyle [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref56">17</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>Table 1. Number and percent of students selecting the correct response for the multiple-choice environmental knowledge survey.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Item</td><td>Correct response</td><td>Cohort A (<italic>n</italic> = 1389)</td><td>Cohort B (<italic>n</italic> = 1773)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No. and % of students selecting the correct response</td></tr><tr><td>1. There are many different kinds of animals and plants, and they live in many different types of environments. What is the word used to describe this idea?</td><td>Biodiversity</td><td char=".">1284 (92.44%)</td><td>1627 (91.77%)</td></tr><tr><td>2. Carbon monoxide is a major contributor to air pollution in the U.S. Which of the following is the biggest source of carbon monoxide?</td><td>Motor vehicles</td><td char=".">766 (55.15%)</td><td>1022 (57.64%)</td></tr><tr><td>3. How is most of the electricity in the U.S. generated?</td><td>Burning oil, coal, and wood</td><td char=".">1125 (80.99%)</td><td>1413 (79.70%)</td></tr><tr><td>4. What is the most common cause of pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans?</td><td>Surface water running off yards, city streets, paved lots, and farm fields</td><td char=".">419 (30.17%)</td><td>501 (28.26%)</td></tr><tr><td>5. Which of the following is a renewable resource?</td><td>Trees</td><td char=".">1142 (82.22%)</td><td>1429 (80.60%)</td></tr><tr><td>6. Ozone forms a protective layer in the earth's upper atmosphere. What does ozone protect us from?</td><td>Harmful, cancer-causing sunlight</td><td char=".">1186 (85.39%)</td><td>1571 (88.61%)</td></tr><tr><td>7. Where does most of the garbage in the U.S. end up?</td><td>Landfills</td><td char=".">1090 (78.47%)</td><td>1351 (76.20%)</td></tr><tr><td>8. What is the name of the primary federal agency that works to protect the environment?</td><td>Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA)</td><td char=".">1110 (79.91%)</td><td>1339 (75.52%)</td></tr><tr><td>9. Which of the following household wastes is considered hazardous waste?</td><td>Batteries</td><td char=".">1168 (84.09%)</td><td>1485 (83.76%)</td></tr><tr><td>10. What is the most common reason that an animal species becomes extinct?</td><td>Their habitats are being destroyed by humans</td><td char=".">1150 (82.79%)</td><td>1464 (82.57%)</td></tr><tr><td>11. Scientists have not determined the best solution for disposing of nuclear waste. In the U.S., what is done with it now?</td><td>Stored and monitored</td><td char=".">961 (69.19%)</td><td>1145 (64.58%)</td></tr><tr><td>12. What is the primary benefit of wetlands?</td><td>Help clean the water before it enters lakes, streams, rivers, or oceans</td><td char=".">773 (55.65)</td><td>1016 (57.30%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0120932551-10">Data screening and analysis</hd> <p>To determine whether the three cohorts of data could be combined for analyzing the RtC variables, we performed a one-way analysis of variance with the cohort (one, two, and three) as the dependent variable and the four factors of RtC as the independent variables. Results indicated that there were significant differences between the groups on the Routine Seeking subscale, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>, 3139) = 20.17, <emph>p </emph>< .001 and on the Short-term Focus subscale, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>, 3138) = 22.08, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Tukey's post hoc comparison showed that for both of the significant subscales, cohort 1 was significantly different from both cohorts 2 and 3. Therefore, we combined cohorts 2 and 3 (referred to as Cohort B) in subsequent analyses and analyzed cohort 1 (referred to as Cohort A) separately.</p> <p>For this exploratory analysis, we examined the data for skewness, kurtosis, normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. Histograms of each variable were examined, and for Cohort A, one variable was found to exhibit skewness: students' self-reported knowledge on environmental legislation, policy and standards. For Cohort B, the variable of self-reported knowledge on environmental legislation, policy and standards was skewed. These variables also exhibited violations of homoscedasticity. Therefore, for the correlation analysis, a log transformation was applied to these three variables to bring them closer to normality and homoscedasticity (Tabachnick and Fidell [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref59">47</reflink>]). All of the other variables were approximately normal. For Cohort A, five cases were deleted due to missing values on all of the survey items. Similarly, for Cohort B, two cases were deleted.</p> <p>We utilized the non-parametric Spearman's Rho for correlation analyses. We also utilized <emph>t</emph>-tests since the <emph>t</emph>-distribution approximates a normal distribution as the sample becomes larger (Box, Hunter, and Hunter [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120932551-12">Demographic profile and baseline knowledge</hd> <p>First, we investigated students' baseline awareness and knowledge of environmental issues. A frequency analysis revealed that only 34.58% of the first-year engineering students from Cohort A said 'yes' when asked whether they had environmental education in high school. Similarly, less than half (35.4%) of students from Cohort B said 'yes' when asked whether they had environmental education at high school.</p> <p>Despite this, the majority of responses to the multiple-choice environmental survey were answered correctly by at least 70% of students for both cohorts (Table 1). Of the 12 items, there was one item that only 30% (Cohort A) and 28% (Cohort B) of students answered correctly: 'What is the most common cause of pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans?' Three other questions were answered correctly by less than 70% of students in both Cohorts – questions 2, 11, and 12.</p> <p>Next, we examined students' self-reported knowledge, where students were asked to rate their knowledge on a scale of one to four (1 for 'not heard of' and 4 for 'know a lot') on (a) environmental issues; (b) environmental legislation, policy and standards; (c) environmental tools, technologies, and approaches; and (d) sustainable development. The multiple-choice environmental knowledge score was not compared because it was not rated on the same scale (Pallant [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref61">40</reflink>]). All relevant means and standard deviations for Cohorts A and B are presented in Table 2. In order to understand how much students know about each type of environmental issue, we conducted <emph>t</emph>-tests to compare the means of responses for the four topics.</p> <p>Table 2. Means and standard deviations for students' self-reported environmental awareness.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Cohort A</td><td>Cohort B</td></tr><tr><td>Topic</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental Issues</td><td>2.73 (.40)</td><td>2.86 (.45)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards</td><td>1.30 (.41)</td><td>1.37 (.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches</td><td>2.16 (.54)</td><td>2.22 (.57)</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable development</td><td>2.07 (.58)</td><td>2.17 (.60)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Cohort A</emph>: The follow-up significance test showed that knowledge of Topic 1 (environmental issues) was significantly higher than the other three topics. Next, students' self-reported knowledge about Topic 2 (environmental legislation, policy and standards) was also lower than Topic 3 (environmental tools, technologies, and approaches) and Topic 4 (sustainable development). Finally, comparing students' mean level of knowledge on Topic 3 to Topic 4 revealed that students scored significantly higher on Topic 3 (environmental tools, technologies, and approaches).</p> <p> <emph>Cohort B</emph>: Similarly, for Cohort B, Topic 1 (environmental issues) was significantly higher than the other three topics. Similar to Cohort A, students' self-reported knowledge about Topic 2 (environmental legislation, policy and standards) was also lower than Topic 3, (environmental tools, technologies, and approaches) and Topic 4 (sustainable development). Again, results were similar to Cohort A when comparing students' mean level of knowledge on Topic 3 to Topic 4, where students scored significantly higher on Topic 3 (environmental tools, technologies, and approaches). Table 3 shows mean differences and significance levels for Cohorts A and B for each of the topics.</p> <p>Table 3. Mean differences for each self-reported environmental awareness topic.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Cohort A</td><td>Cohort B</td></tr><tr><td>Topics (topic with the higher mean is italicized)</td><td>Mean difference</td><td>Mean difference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Topic 1</italic> (<italic>Environmental Issues</italic>) & Topic 2 (Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards)</td><td>1.43***</td><td>1.49***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topic 1</italic> (<italic>Environmental Issues</italic>) & Topic 3 (Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches)</td><td>0.58***</td><td>0.63***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topic 1</italic> (<italic>Environmental Issues</italic>) & Topic 4 (Sustainable development)</td><td>0.66***</td><td>0.68***</td></tr><tr><td>Topic 2 (Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards) & <italic>Topic 3</italic> (<italic>Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches</italic>)</td><td>−0.86***</td><td>−0.86***</td></tr><tr><td>Topic 2 (Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards) & <italic>Topic 4</italic> (<italic>Sustainable development</italic>)</td><td>−0.77***</td><td>−0.81***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topic 3</italic> (<italic>Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches</italic>) & Topic 4 (Sustainable development)</td><td>0.09***</td><td>0.05***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>To clarify the precise nature of students' knowledge on each topic, we examined the mean of each item for each topic. Topic 1 (environmental issues) means revealed that students had the most self-reported knowledge of <emph>global warming</emph> and the least knowledge about <emph>photochemical smog</emph> and <emph>salinity</emph>. The second examination of Topic 2 (environmental legislation, policy and standards) showed that students reported that they knew more about the <emph>Kyoto Protocol</emph>, which meant that many of them heard of, but could not explain, the protocol. Students reported minimal knowledge of the rest of the items under the second topic as indicated by a score very close to one for Cohort A. Students in Cohort B showed slightly higher ratings, with the lowest rating for <emph>EU EMAS</emph>. For Topic 3 (environmental tools, technologies, and approaches), students best knew about <emph>renewable energy technologies</emph> and least about <emph>product stewardship</emph>. Finally, for Topic 4 (sustainable development), students had the most knowledge of <emph>population growth</emph> and the least knowledge of <emph>stakeholders' participation</emph>. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for each topic for Cohorts A and B.</p> <p>Table 4. Lowest and highest self-reported mean values for each of the self-reported environmental knowledge topics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Cohort A</td><td>Cohort B</td></tr><tr><td>Topic and items</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Topic 1</italic> (<italic>Environmental Issues</italic>)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Global warming</td><td>3.27</td><td>0.57</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td>Photochemical smog</td><td>1.83</td><td>0.80</td><td>2.02</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Salinity</td><td /><td /><td>2.02</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topic 2</italic> (<italic>Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards</italic>)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Kyoto protocol</td><td>1.64</td><td>0.88</td><td>1.70</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>EU EMAS</td><td /><td /><td>1.12</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topic 3</italic> (<italic>Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches</italic>)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Renewable energy technologies</td><td>2.82</td><td>0.78</td><td>2.95</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Product stewardship</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.74</td><td>1.63</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topic 4</italic> (<italic>Sustainable development</italic>)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Population growth</td><td>2.86</td><td>0.72</td><td>2.99</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholders' participation</td><td>1.52</td><td>0.73</td><td>1.60</td><td>0.76</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Because students reported minimal knowledge of all other items for Topic 2 as indicated by scores very close to 1, low means were not reported for Cohort A.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-13">Environmental knowledge and RtC</hd> <p>To explore relationships between RtC and environmental knowledge and awareness, we conducted a correlation analysis between the RtC subscales, the self-reported environmental awareness subscales, and the total multiple-choice knowledge scores.</p> <p>For Cohort A, we found several significant, but weak correlations (Table 5). All significant correlations were negative, except for correlations between the Short-term Focus RtC subscale and the two significant self-reported environmental awareness subscales.</p> <p>Table 5. Correlations between RtC subscales and environmental awareness for Cohort A.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Environmental awareness and knowledge</td><td>RtC – Routine Seeking</td><td>RtC – Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change</td><td>RtC – Cognitive Rigidity</td><td>RtC – Short-term Focus</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental Issues</td><td char=".">−.05*</td><td char=".">−.05*</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental legislation, policy and standards</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">−.09***</td><td char=".">.06*</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable development</td><td char=".">−.07*</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">.06*</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental knowledge</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">−.02</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>The Routine Seeking subscale of RtC was significantly negatively correlated with Environmental Issues (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> < .05), and significantly negatively correlated with Sustainable Development (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.07, <emph>p</emph> < .05). The Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change subscale of RtC was significantly negatively correlated with Environmental Issues (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> < .05), Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> < .01), and Sustainable Development (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.06, <emph>p</emph> < .05). For the RtC subscale of Cognitive Rigidity, there were three significant negative correlations with self-reported environmental awareness: Environmental Legislation, Policy and Standards (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.06, <emph>p</emph> < .05), Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.09, <emph>p</emph> < .001), and Sustainable Development (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> < .01). A significant negative correlation was found between Cognitive Rigidity and the multiple-choice knowledge survey (<emph>ρ</emph> = .06, <emph>p</emph> < .05). Finally, for the RtC subscale of Short-term Focus, there were two significant positive correlations: Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches (<emph>ρ</emph> = .06, <emph>p</emph> < .05), and Sustainable Development (<emph>ρ</emph> = .06, <emph>p</emph> < .05).</p> <p>For Cohort B, all significant correlations were negative (Table 6). In general, the correlation coefficients were larger among several of the variables for Cohort B, although they are still considered weak.</p> <p>Table 6. Correlations between RtC subscales and environmental awareness for Cohort B.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Environmental awareness and knowledge</td><td>RtC – Routine Seeking</td><td>RtC – Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change</td><td>RtC – Cognitive Rigidity</td><td>RtC – Short-term Focus</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental Issues</td><td char=".">−.10***</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental legislation, policy and standards</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental tools, technologies, and approaches</td><td char=".">−.05*</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable development</td><td char=".">−.08***</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">−.05*</td><td char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental knowledge</td><td char=".">−.10***</td><td char=".">−.07**</td><td char=".">−.11***</td><td char=".">−.06*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>The Routine Seeking subscale of RtC was significantly negatively correlated with Environmental Issues (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.10, <emph>p</emph> < .001), Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> < .05), Sustainable Development (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> < .001), and multiple-choice knowledge scores (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.10, <emph>p</emph> < .001). The Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change subscale of RtC was significantly negatively correlated with Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.07, <emph>p</emph> < .01), and multiple-choice knowledge scores (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.10, <emph>p</emph> < .001). For the RtC subscale of Cognitive Rigidity, there were three significant negative correlations with self-reported environmental awareness: Environmental Issues (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> < .01), Sustainable Development (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> < .05), and multiple-choice knowledge scores (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.11, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Finally, the Short-term Focus subscale of RtC showed one significant negative correlation with the multiple-choice knowledge scores (<emph>ρ</emph> = −.06, <emph>p</emph> < .05).</p> <p>There were no significant correlations between RtC and Environmental Legislation, Policy and Standards.</p> <p>We also examined correlations between students' RtC and their attitudinal ratings (1 = not important, 2 = possibly important, 3 = important, 4 = very important) of the importance of sustainable development for: (a) you personally, (b) you as an engineer, (c) your country, (d) the society worldwide, (e) population growth, and (f) future generations.</p> <p>For Cohort A, all the ratings of the importance of sustainable development were significantly negatively correlated with the Routine Seeking subscale of RtC (Table 7). That is, the higher a student rated the importance of sustainable development for all of the categories, the lower the student tends to score on the Routine Seeking subscale. Next, there were significant negative correlations between students' scores on the Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change subscale and their ratings of the importance of sustainable development for four categories (you personally, you as an engineer, your country, and future generations). For the Short-term Focus subscale, significant negative correlations were found with all of the categories of ratings of importance. Finally, no ratings of the importance of sustainable development for any category were significantly correlated with the Cognitive Rigidity subscale. Although the correlation coefficients for the attitudinal ratings were overall higher than those of the environmental knowledge and awareness, they are still considered weak for both cohorts.</p> <p>Table 7. Correlations between the importance of sustainable development and RtC for Cohort A.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Importance of sustainable development for</td><td>RtC subscale</td></tr><tr><td>Routine Seeking</td><td>Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change</td><td>Short-term Focus</td><td>Cognitive Rigidity</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>You personally</td><td char=".">−.11***</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">−.12***</td><td char=".">−.03</td></tr><tr><td>You as an engineer</td><td char=".">−.13***</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">−.14***</td><td char=".">−.02</td></tr><tr><td>Your country</td><td char=".">−.09***</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">−.09***</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>The society worldwide</td><td char=".">−.09***</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Population growth</td><td char=".">−.09***</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.09***</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Future generations</td><td char=".">−.10***</td><td char=".">−.69*</td><td char=".">−.13***</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>Examining correlations between the RtC subscales and students' environmental attitudinal ratings for Cohort B, we found all but one significant negative correlation for the Routine Seeking subscale ('your country' was not significant). That is, as students rate more highly their beliefs about the importance of sustainable development for them personally, as engineers, for society, for population growth, and for future generations, their Routine Seeking ratings tend to lower. Next, looking at the correlations between attitudinal ratings and Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change, no significant correlations were found. For the Short-term Focus subscale, significant negative correlations were found with all of the categories of ratings of importance. Finally, there were no significant correlations between Cognitive Rigidity and students' attitudinal ratings (Table 8).</p> <p>Table 8. Correlations between the importance of sustainable development and RtC for Cohort B.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Importance of sustainable development for</td><td>RtC subscale</td></tr><tr><td>Routine Seeking</td><td>Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change</td><td>Short-term Focus</td><td>Cognitive Rigidity</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>You personally</td><td char=".">−.13***</td><td char=".">−.00</td><td char=".">−.08***</td><td char=".">−.03</td></tr><tr><td>You as an engineer</td><td char=".">−.06*</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.06**</td><td char=".">−.03</td></tr><tr><td>Your country</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>The society worldwide</td><td char=".">−.05*</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">−.08**</td><td char=".">−.02</td></tr><tr><td>Population growth</td><td char=".">−.11***</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">−.07**</td><td char=".">−.04</td></tr><tr><td>Future generations</td><td char=".">−.10***</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">−.07**</td><td char=".">−.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-14">Resistance to change</hd> <p>To determine how students' scores varied on the different factors of RtC, we calculated means and standard deviations for each factor of the RtC Scale (Table 9). For both cohorts, the highest mean score was found for the Cognitive Rigidity subscale, followed by the Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change subscale. The lowest mean score for both cohorts was the Routine Seeking subscale, indicating that students are less likely to resist changes in their routines.</p> <p>Table 9. Means and standard deviations for each subscale of the RtC Scale.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>RtC subscale</td><td>Cohort A</td><td>Cohort B</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Routine Seeking</td><td char=".">1.35</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">1.47</td><td char=".">0.55</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change</td><td char=".">1.85</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">1.86</td><td char=".">0.62</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term Focus</td><td char=".">1.41</td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">1.56</td><td char=".">0.65</td></tr><tr><td>Cognitive Rigidity</td><td char=".">1.99</td><td char=".">0.68</td><td char=".">1.98</td><td char=".">0.55</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Scale is from 0 to 4.</p> <p>Next, we examined the four subscales of RtC more closely with regard to gender. For Cohort A, males showed the highest RtC (mean = 8.13) on Cognitive Rigidity and the lowest RtC on Short-term Focus (mean = 5.64). In contrast, the highest RtC score for females was found for Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change (mean = 8.16). However, similar to males, females also showed the lowest scores on Short-term Focus (mean = 5.69).</p> <p>Examining Cohort B differences between males and females, our findings were similar to those for Cohort A. Males in Cohort B also reported the highest Cognitive Rigidity (mean = 8.07) and the lowest scores on Short-term Focus (mean = 6.26). For Cohort B, females self-reported the highest RtC for Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change (mean = 7.90) and the lowest for Short-term Focus (mean = 6.21). Table 10 shows the means and standard deviations for males and females in Cohorts A and B on each RtC subscale.</p> <p>Table 10. Means and standard deviations for male and female students on each RtC subscale.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Cohort A</td><td>Cohort B</td></tr><tr><td>Males</td><td>Females</td><td>Males</td><td>Females</td></tr><tr><td>Topic</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subscale A</td><td char=".">6.77 (2.71)</td><td char=".">6.75 (2.76)</td><td char=".">7.36 (2.75)</td><td char=".">7.36 (2.66)</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td char=".">7.22 (2.80)</td><td char=".">8.16 (2.73)</td><td char=".">7.34 (2.52)</td><td char=".">7.90 (2.22)</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td char=".">5.64 (2.67)</td><td char=".">5.69 (2.61)</td><td char=".">6.26 (2.62)</td><td char=".">6.21 (2.46)</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td char=".">8.13 (2.69)</td><td char=".">7.28 (2.77)</td><td char=".">8.07 (2.13)</td><td char=".">7.41 (2.32)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Next, to determine if the differences between males and females on each subscale of RtC were significant, we calculated Welch's two sample <emph>t</emph>-tests. For Cohort A, males and females reported significantly different scores on Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change, <emph>t</emph>(448.22) = −5.13, <emph>p</emph> < .001, and on Cognitive Rigidity, <emph>t</emph>(429.52) = 4.65, <emph>p</emph> < .001. That is, females reported significantly higher Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change and males reported significantly higher RtC in the domain of Cognitive Rigidity. There were no significant differences between gender on Routine Seeking, <emph>t</emph>(432.78) = 0.12, <emph>p</emph> = .90, or on Short-term Focus, <emph>t</emph>(447.36) = −0.28, <emph>p</emph> = .78.</p> <p>Testing for significant differences on Cohort B, we found similar significant differences to those found in Cohort A on two of the four RtC subscales. For Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change, females scored significantly higher than males, <emph>t</emph>(622.09) = −4.15, <emph>p</emph> < .001. For Cognitive Rigidity, males scored significantly higher than females, <emph>t</emph>(526.17) = 4.87, <emph>p</emph> < .001. No significant differences between males and females were found for Routine Seeking, <emph>t</emph>(574.82) = −0.03, <emph>p</emph> = .97, or Short-term Focus, <emph>t</emph>(588.68) = 0.32, <emph>p</emph> = .75.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to understand first-year engineering students' levels of environmental awareness and knowledge as well as their RtC, and how different factors of RtC are related to their knowledge and attitudes about environmental sustainability.</p> <p>We first examined students' baseline knowledge and awareness about environmental issues. We found that most students entering the first-year engineering program have not had prior environmental education in high school. Still, on a multiple-choice survey of basic environmental issues, most questions were answered correctly by more than 70% of students. However, some of the questions that may have an impact on engineered products were answered incorrectly by the majority of students (e.g. the biggest source of carbon monoxide; and how nuclear waste is taken care of in the USA). Compared to the general public who took this survey in 1997 and 2000 as reported by Coyle ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref62">17</reflink>]), a higher percentage first-year engineering students answered the items correctly than did the general public. Although demographic characteristics differ among these samples, this is a positive finding even though there is room for improvement.</p> <p>In terms of self-reported environmental awareness, students report more knowledge about more general environmental topics (Environmental Issues) than more specific topics or terminologies (e.g. Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards). More specifically, it appears that students are most knowledgeable about environmental topics that receive more media attention, such as global warming, rather than topics such as photochemical smog. However, their average knowledge score equated to 'heard of but could not explain,' indicating awareness but lacking deeper understanding of the environmental issues. This is consistent with their scores on the multiple-choice knowledge test, which measures general environmental knowledge that was present in the media (Coyle [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conversely, we found that students showed the least knowledge on the Environmental Legislation, Policy, and Standards subscale, which relates to specific environmental policy issues. Most students scored at the level of 'not heard of.' The results were consistent with the findings of a worldwide study (Azapagic, Perdan, and Shallcross [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref64">8</reflink>]), which showed that the level of knowledge on sustainability and environmental issues among surveyed undergraduates was not satisfactory and that there was a large knowledge gap on almost every aspect from environmental tools, technologies, and approaches like tradable pollution permits to environmental issues such as biodiversity loss. These results are also consistent with the finding that fewer than half of students from both cohorts report any environmental education in high school. To explore connections between RtC and environmental knowledge and awareness, we carried out a series of correlation analyses.</p> <p>Correlation analyses were conducted for Cohorts A and B to examine the relationship between the RtC subscales and environmental awareness and knowledge. Our findings revealed several significant, but weak, correlations between the RtC subscales and environmental awareness and knowledge. Most of the correlations were negative, meaning that the higher the RtC, for example, the lower the environmental knowledge or awareness. For the Routine Seeking RtC subscale, two significant correlations were found for the environmental awareness subscales, while three significant correlations were found for Cohort B among the environmental awareness subscales in addition to the multiple-choice knowledge survey. Among these correlations, the strongest was found in Cohort B for the Environmental Issues subscale and the multiple-choice knowledge survey. These correlations were still weak, but can cautiously be interpreted that students who have higher routine-seeking behaviors show lower environmental awareness and knowledge. This finding was anticipated, because it was hypothesized that if an individual is more resistant to changing his or her mind, in this case, seeking routines, then implementing sustainability into their lives or learning more about the topic might not be considered a priority because it may mean deviating from an established routine.</p> <p>Next, we examined correlations between Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change and the environmental awareness and knowledge variables. Several weak, significant correlations were found. In both cohorts, Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches were significant, implying that the higher the emotional reaction to an imposed change, the lower a student's awareness of environmental tools, technologies, and approaches. Prior studies have shown that in regard to environmental sustainability, individuals often resist changing their environmental behaviors even when they show positive environmental sustainability attitudes (Kollmuss and Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]; Powers, DeWaters, and Venczel [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref66">42</reflink>]). For example, Wray-Lake, Flanagan, and Osgood's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]) study regarding high school students' environmental attitudes showed that students' RtC their opinions about the need for sustainable behavior was due to their belief that issues such as climate change would not affect them in the future. Azapagic, Perdan, and Shallcross ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>]) found that while university students might wish to learn more about sustainability, they felt that environmental responsibility was in the hands of future generations rather than their own. Future research to explore possible reasons for students with higher RtC to be more knowledgeable about environmental behavior should be explored.</p> <p>Next, correlations between Cognitive Rigidity and environmental awareness and knowledge were explored. Several weak, significant, negative correlations appear in both cohorts. However, there was one weak, significant positive correlation between that RtC subscale and multiple-choice environmental knowledge for Cohort A. This contradicts the weak, negative correlation found in Cohort B. Further exploration is needed to determine the nature of the relationship, if any, between these variables.</p> <p>Finally, we examined correlations between environmental awareness and knowledge and Short-term Focus. While Cohort A showed two significant positive correlations between Environmental Tools, Technologies, and Approaches and Sustainable Development, Cohort B showed a significant negative association between Short-term Focus and multiple-choice environmental knowledge. That is, the higher the self-reported environmental awareness on the two subscales, the higher students scored on Short-term Focus. Conversely, the higher the factual knowledge survey score, the higher students self-rated on Short-term Focus. It was hypothesized that if students score highly on Short-term Focus (meaning that they are resistant to changing their plans or behaviors), then they may be resistant to considering longer term goals and changes required for environmental sustainability despite the long-term benefits. Here, the results are mixed and may need to be more fully explored through measures of environmental behaviors in addition to awareness and knowledge.</p> <p>We also examined the correlation between ratings about the importance of sustainable development (students' ratings of the importance of sustainable development for themselves, as an engineer, their country, society, population growth, and future generations) and found similar patterns with weak, significant negative correlations between RtC subscales and the attitudinal ratings. Routine Seeking, Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change, and Cognitive Rigidity were all significantly negatively correlated with several attitudinal variables. This result was expected, because students who are more resistant to changing their behaviors might carry this attitude toward environmental behaviors as well.</p> <p>Interestingly, Short-term Focus showed no significant correlations with any of the attitudinal variables, suggesting that this aspect of RtC may not have as strong a relationship with students' attitudes about environmental sustainability as with their knowledge about the environment. These results were in line with Eagly and Kulesa's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>], 129) statement that, 'It is more difficult to change attitudes to the extent that they are strong,' which aligns with the notion of resisting change, whether it be through an emotional reaction, persisting in routines, or focusing on short-term solutions. Again, further research is needed to explore possible explanations for why these types of resistance might be related to environmental knowledge and why this relationship is not found with the Short-Term Thinking Focus subscale.</p> <p>Finally, it appeared that findings varied somewhat across the two cohorts. This makes sense because the two cohorts were significantly different with regard to RtC. In Cohort A, the baseline RtC score showed significant differences between the Routine Seeking and the Short-term Focus subscales, with Cohort B showing higher mean scores for both. It is unclear why the two cohorts varied on these RtC factors.</p> <p>A baseline examination of RtC subscales found that students scored highest on the Cognitive Rigidity subscale. Looking within gender, we found that males self-reported significantly higher on the Cognitive Rigidity subscale than females. Cognitive Rigidity implies that once an individual has come to a conclusion, they are less likely to change their minds and their views remain consistent over time. This can have implications for environmental education programs at the undergraduate level because students high in cognitive rigidity may be resistant to exploring the topic.</p> <p>Additional gender differences were found for the Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change subscale, where females self-reported significantly higher scores than males. In terms of the classroom setting, it may be more likely that female students will feel more stress in response to studying a topic like environmental sustainability.</p> <p>The correlation findings should be interpreted cautiously because the coefficients are considered weak. This study is exploratory, and as such, more research is needed to determine how RtC affects or relates to students' awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about environmental sustainability. Future research could also focus on enacting an environmental sustainability curriculum and monitoring students' attitudes, knowledge and RtC over time.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-16">Significance of the study</hd> <p>The goal of this study was to investigate the existing environmental and sustainable knowledge gaps amongst first-year engineering students and to examine the relationship between environmental knowledge, awareness, and RtC. Understanding students' levels of environmental knowledge and attitudes in relation to RtC can assist educators, curriculum designers, and researchers to more effectively target areas of resistance.</p> <p>First-year engineering students come to higher education with a lack of knowledge about environmental issues. Because of the importance of sustainability and environmental concerns in all aspects of the engineering design process, an implication of this study is that the first-year engineering program may need to start strategically implementing more sustainable engineering curriculum. Efforts have already taken place, but many undergraduate engineering programs have been slow to incorporate sustainable design into the curriculum, often treating the subject as an 'add on' or elective (Azapagic, Perdan, and Shallcross [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]; Glavic [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref71">23</reflink>]; Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas, and Mulder [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref72">43</reflink>]). The lack of first-year engineering students' knowledge about many pressing environmental issues that are significant for engineers highlights the importance of integrating sustainability into undergraduate engineering curricula.</p> <p>Another implication of the study is targeting students' RtC. The RtC factors of Routine Seeking, Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change, Cognitive Rigidity, and Short-term Focus all showed significant weak correlation with various factors of environmental awareness, knowledge, and attitudes. Dembo and Seli ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]) state that the main reasons that students resist change in academic settings are that students do not believe that they can change, they do not wish to change, and they do not know how or what to change. Integrating strategies to overcome several factors of RtC in students when implementing sustainability curricula could have a positive impact and warrants further research.</p> <p>Because the amount and quality of information have shown how employees will react to change in organizations (Oreg [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref74">37</reflink>]), instructors can make sure to provide plenty of high-quality information about the topic. Additionally, to alleviate potential stress, rather than using a top-down lecture approach to presenting a controversial topic such as environmental sustainability, instructors may choose a more student-centered method such as discussing articles in groups. In fact, richer discussion could come from a topic in which groups of students hold differing opinions. In the organizational change literature, resistance is framed positively in this sense (Waddell and Sohel [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref75">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>This research may help instructors to predict barriers in introducing a new and potentially controversial topic such as environmental sustainability. Differences in how males and females react to imposed change could provide insight into methods for introducing the topic, or spacing out instruction over time. For example, understanding that it may take male students longer to change their minds about a topic (as measured by Cognitive Rigidity) could mean that instruction may be spread out over a longer period of the class. Knowing that female students may feel more stressed in response to change (as measured by the Emotional Reaction to Imposed Change) may prompt having more extended deadlines for class work or presenting the material in a discussion-based format.</p> <p>In summary, the implications of this study include increasing awareness of what knowledge should be targeted when designing educational curricula on sustainability for undergraduate engineers while taking into account RtC. Looking into the different factors of RtC, especially those that were significantly correlated with environmental knowledge, could help educators design curriculum with those factors in mind. RtC may be a consideration to take into account when designing and implementing sustainability curricula for students, and as such, further study is warranted to investigate these factors based on these preliminary findings.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-17">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0120932551-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0120932551-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdul-Wahab, S. A., and M. Y. Abdulraheem. 2003. "The Need for Inclusion of Environmental Education in Undergraduate Engineering Curricula." International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4 (2): 126–37. doi: 10.1108/14676370310467140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abdullah, H. 1994. "Environmental Topics in Engineering Education." Proceedings of the 7th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Antalya, Turkey, Vol. 3, 1004–7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> ABET. 2011. "Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs." <ulink href="http://www.abet.org/engineering-criteria-2012–2013/">http://www.abet.org/engineering-criteria-2012–2013/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers). 2003. "Code of Ethics." <ulink href="http://www.aiche.org/About/Code.aspx">http://www.aiche.org/About/Code.aspx</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Board of Direction. 1996. "Code of Ethics." <ulink href="http://www.asce.org/inside/codeofethics.cfm">http://www.asce.org/inside/codeofethics.cfm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 2009. "Code of Ethics of Engineers." <ulink href="http://www.asme.org/documents/ASMECodeofEthicsNov06.doc">http://www.asme.org/documents/ASMECodeofEthicsNov06.doc</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Aurandt, J. L., and E. C. Butler. 2011. "Sustainability Education: Approaches for Incorporating Sustainability into the Undergraduate Curriculum." ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 137 (2): 102–6. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Azapagic, A., S. Perdan, and D. Shallcross. 2005. "How Much Do Engineering Students Know about Sustainable Development? The Findings of an International Survey and Possible Implications for the Engineering Curriculum." European Journal of Engineering Education 30: 1–19. doi: 10.1080/03043790512331313804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bhandari, A., S. K. Ong, and B. L. Steward. 2011. "Student Learning in a Multidisciplinary Sustainable Engineering Course." Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 137: 86–93. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Block, P. 2011. Flawless Consulting: A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bovey, W. H., and A. Hede. 2001. "Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Defence Mechanisms." Journal of Managerial Psychology 16 (7): 534–48. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Box, G. E. P., J. S. Hunter, and W. G. Hunter. 2005. Statistics for Experimenters. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardella, M. E., S. R. Hoffmann, M. W. Ohland, and A. L. Pawley. 2009. "Sustaining Sustainable Design through 'Normalized Sustainability' in a First-Year Engineering Course." Paper presented at the Mudd Design Workshop VII, Claremont, CA, May 28–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coch, L., and J. R. P. French, Jr. 1948. "Overcoming Resistance to Change." Human Relations 1: 512–32. doi: 10.1177/001872674800100408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conlon, E. 2008. "The New Engineer: Between Employability and Social Responsibility." European Journal of Engineering Education 33 (2): 151–59. doi: 10.1080/03043790801996371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cotton, D., I. Bailey, M. Warren, and S. Bissell. 2009. "Revolutions and Second-best Solutions: Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education 34 (7): 719–33. doi: 10.1080/03075070802641552</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper Research and Related Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. <ulink href="http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf">http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dembo, M. H., and H. P. Seli. 2004. "Students' Resistance to Change in Learning Strategies Courses." Journal of Developmental Education 27 (3): 2–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donnelly, R., and C. Boyle. 2006. "The Catch-22 of Engineering Sustainable Development." Journal of Environmental Engineering 132: 149–55. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:2(149)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dvorak, B. I., B. A. Stewart, A. Hosni, S. A. Hawkey, and V. Nelsen. 2011. "Intensive Environmental Sustainability Education: Long-term Impacts on Workplace Behavior." ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 137 (2): 113–20. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagly, A. H., and P. Kulesa. 1997. "Attitudes, Attitude Structure, and Resistance to Change." In Environmental Ethics and Behavior, edited by M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. A. Wade, 122–53. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galloway, P. 2008. The 21st-Century Engineer: A Proposal for Engineering Education Reform. Reston, VA: ASCE Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glavič, P. 2006. "Sustainability Engineering Education." Clean Technology and Environmental Policy 8 (1): 24–30. doi: 10.1007/s10098-005-0025-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graedel, T., and B. Allenby. 2010. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmberg, J., M. Svanström, D.-J. Peet, K. Mulder, D. Ferrer-Balas, and J. Segalàs. 2008. "Embedding Sustainability in Higher Education through Interaction with Lecturers: Case Studies from Three European Technical Universities." European Journal of Engineering Education 33 (3): 271–82. doi: 10.1080/03043790802088491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. "Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?" Environmental Education Research 8: 239–60. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamborn, J. 2009. "Teaching Sustainability Using Project Based Learning." In Proceedings from the 2009 SSEE international conference – solutions for a sustainable planet, 1–7. Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLennan, J. F. 2004. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Kansas City, MO: Ecotone Publishing Company LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulder, K. 2004. "Engineering Education in Sustainable Development: Sustainability as a Tool to Open up the Windows of Engineering Institutions." Business Strategy and the Environment 13 (4): 275–85. doi: 10.1002/bse.407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakajima, N., and W. Vanderburg. 2005. "A Failing Grade for Our Efforts to Make Our Civilization More Environmentally Sustainable." Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 25 (2): 129–44. doi: 10.1177/0270467605274856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2005. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NEETF (National Environmental Education Foundation). 2005. "Environmental Literacy in AMERICA: What 10 Years of NEETF/Roper Research and Related Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S." <ulink href="http://dev.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf">http://dev.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Board. 2005. "Engineering Workforce Issues and Engineering Education: What Are the Linkages?" <ulink href="http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122%5f3.pdf">http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122%5f3.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers) Board of Directors. 2006. "Code of Ethics." <ulink href="http://www.nspe.org/ethics/CodeofEthics/CodeHistory/historyofcode.html">http://www.nspe.org/ethics/CodeofEthics/CodeHistory/historyofcode.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oreg, S. 2003. "Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure." Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 680–93. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oreg, S. 2006. "Personality, Context, and Resistance to Organizational Change." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15: 73–101. doi: 10.1080/13594320500451247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oreg, S., A. Michel, and T. B. By, eds. 2013. The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee's Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oreg, S., M. Vakola, and A. Armenakis. 2011. "Change Recipients' Reactions to Organizational Change: A Sixty-Year Review of Quantitative Studies." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47: 461–524. doi: 10.1177/0021886310396550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pallant, J. 2010. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using the SPSS Program. 4th ed. New York: Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins, D. 1999. "The Many Faces of Constructivism." Educational Leadership 57 (3): 6–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powers, S. E., J. E. DeWaters, and M. Z. Venczel. 2011. "Teaching Life-Cycle Perspectives: Sustainable Transportation Fuels Unit for High-School and Undergraduate Engineering Students." ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 137 (2): 55–63. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segalàs, J., D. Ferrer-Balas, and K. F. Mulder. 2008. "Conceptual Maps: Measuring Learning Processes of Engineering Students Concerning Sustainable Development." European Journal of Engineering Education 33 (3): 297–306. doi: 10.1080/03043790802088616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strobel, J. S., I. Hua, J. Fang, and C. Harris. 2009. "Not All Constraints Are Equal: Stewardship and Boundaries of Sustainability as Viewed by First-Year Engineering Students." International Journal of Engineering Education 26 (2): 339–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Summers, M., A. Childs, and G. Corney. 2005. "Education for Sustainable Development in Initial Teacher Training: Issues for Interdisciplinary Collaboration." Environmental Education Research 11 (5): 623–647.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Szabla, D. B. 2007. "A Multidimensional View of Resistance to Organizational Change: Exploring Cognitive, Emotional, and Intentional Responses to Planned Change Across Perceived Change Leadership Strategies." Human Resource Development Quarterly 18 (4): 525–58. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waddell, D., and A. S. Sohal. 1998. "Resistance: A Constructive Tool for Change Management." Management Decision 36 (8): 543–48. doi: 10.1108/00251749810232628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolcott, M., S. Brown, M. King, D. Ascher-Barnstone, T. Beyreuther, and K. Olsen. 2011. "Model for Faculty, Student, and Practitioner Development in Sustainability Engineering Through an Integrated Design Experience." ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 137 (2): 94–101. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000058</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray-Lake, L., C. A. Flanagan, and D. W. Osgood. 2009. "Examining Trends in Adolescent Environmental Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors Across Three Decades." Environment and Behavior 42 (1): 61–85. doi: 10.1177/0013916509335163</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Melissa Dyehouse; Nicole Weber; Jun Fang; Constance Harris; Ray David; Inez Hua and Johannes Strobel</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib680" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1127110
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Undergraduate Engineering Students' Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dyehouse%2C+Melissa%22">Dyehouse, Melissa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weber%2C+Nicole%22">Weber, Nicole</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fang%2C+Jun%22">Fang, Jun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harris%2C+Constance%22">Harris, Constance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David%2C+Ray%22">David, Ray</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hua%2C+Inez%22">Hua, Inez</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Strobel%2C+Johannes%22">Strobel, Johannes</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2017 42(2):390-409.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: DRL0935174
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resistance+to+Change%22">Resistance to Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environment%22">Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Freshmen%22">College Freshmen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainable+Development%22">Sustainable Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1052734
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Engineering professional associations identified environmental sustainability as a key responsibility of the educated engineer. Data from national surveys of the general public demonstrate low environmental knowledge levels and a high level of resistance when it comes to environmental behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between first-year engineering students' environmental knowledge and attitudes and resistance to change (RtC). The authors administered instruments measuring RtC and environmental knowledge and attitudes to three groups (n = 3,169) of first-year engineering students in the fall semesters of 2008-2010. Students showed the highest mean scores on the Cognitive Rigidity subscale of RtC. Overall, weak, negative correlations were found between most RtC subscales and environmental knowledge/attitudes, meaning that students with higher RtC score lower overall on environmental knowledge and consider sustainable development less important. Findings can aid researchers and curriculum designers in understanding students' knowledge levels and the relationship between RtC factors and knowledge/attitudes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 50
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1127110
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1127110
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1052734
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 390
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Resistance to Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Freshmen
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustainable Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Surveys
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Undergraduate Engineering Students' Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dyehouse, Melissa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weber, Nicole
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fang, Jun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harris, Constance
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David, Ray
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hua, Inez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Strobel, Johannes
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1