View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effect of an Environmental Education Program Based on Empathy and Reflective Thinking on Preadolescents' Environmental Values and Knowledge

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effect of an Environmental Education Program Based on Empathy and Reflective Thinking on Preadolescents' Environmental Values and Knowledge
Language: English
Authors: Sreeja Gopinath (ORCID 0000-0002-0993-303X), Aneesh Kumar (ORCID 0000-0003-1081-7201)
Source: International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. 2025 34(2):100-119.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Middle School Students, Environmental Education, Climate, Empathy, Reflection, Environmental Influences, Student Behavior, Student Attitudes, Story Telling, Learning Processes, Cognitive Development, Affective Objectives, Metacognition, Place Based Education
Geographic Terms: India
DOI: 10.1080/10382046.2024.2349430
ISSN: 1038-2046
1747-7611
Abstract: As a remedial measure to human-induced climate change, it is imperative to develop intrinsic altruistic values and adequate knowledge of environmental phenomena and behavior to act in favor of the environment. The study aims to assess the effect of an Environmental Education Program (EEP) based on empathy, reflective thinking, and information on preadolescents' environmental values and knowledge. For that, a non-equivalent control group design was used. Data collection was done through questionnaires, checklists, and participant thought diaries. Forty-six students (eleven-to-twelve-year-old children) selected through purposive sampling from the sixth standard of two semi-urban schools in Kerala, India, constituted the sample. In the intervention, empathy was manipulated through stories and empathy exercises, reflective thinking through thought diaries, and information on environmental phenomena, issues, and the effect of human actions through stories and knowledge exercises. Empathy, reflective thinking, and information manipulations positively influenced the participants' environmental values and knowledge, and the effect manifested in cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions. The study has implications for conducting Environmental Education indoors effectively by integrating affective, cognitive, and metacognitive approaches. Empathy stories can be utilized to address various environmental phenomena and issues. Reflective thinking on environmental phenomena and issues can be applied to teach appropriate environmental behaviors.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1467999
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFG84DfxkqTQk8NthQUAKH6AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLErULxDmzoV6MXfJwIBEICBm8_41gH8Iwm5-m4GHCzWGiXVBIWfo7SlOFuAxpiLfcOM9TEPXKhVLkNaVJw5pooEfYJdsp7VNpOaaI-T8THCRW7ADFRVXQwhLlPP3erecZBgCHo2_ci4cHwUdQnlr4_Ghw2i3Kf6FQAdvgVoPicij__fL4-95fIloBmF1HjVACiCE745TM-TM4sYNerqsMmBxagrYxAUHmRvmNEv
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184519426;ght01may.25;2025Apr18.03:25;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184519426-1">The effect of an environmental education program based on empathy and reflective thinking on preadolescents' environmental values and knowledge </title> <p>As a remedial measure to human-induced climate change, it is imperative to develop intrinsic altruistic values and adequate knowledge of environmental phenomena and behavior to act in favor of the environment. The study aims to assess the effect of an Environmental Education Program (EEP) based on empathy, reflective thinking, and information on preadolescents' environmental values and knowledge. For that, a non-equivalent control group design was used. Data collection was done through questionnaires, checklists, and participant thought diaries. Forty-six students (eleven-to-twelve-year-old children) selected through purposive sampling from the sixth standard of two semi-urban schools in Kerala, India, constituted the sample. In the intervention, empathy was manipulated through stories and empathy exercises, reflective thinking through thought diaries, and information on environmental phenomena, issues, and the effect of human actions through stories and knowledge exercises. Empathy, reflective thinking, and information manipulations positively influenced the participants' environmental values and knowledge, and the effect manifested in cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions. The study has implications for conducting Environmental Education indoors effectively by integrating affective, cognitive, and metacognitive approaches. Empathy stories can be utilized to address various environmental phenomena and issues. Reflective thinking on environmental phenomena and issues can be applied to teach appropriate environmental behaviors.</p> <p>Keywords: Empathy; environmental attitude; environmental values; environmental knowledge; pro-environmental behavior; reflective thinking</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Environmental issues like extreme heat, cold, drought, and flood have become common phenomena all across the globe. In July 2021, when there were floods in Germany and Belgium, extreme heat waves hit Canada and the US Pacific Northwest. Considering the local context of the study area, Kerala, a state in India, witnessed devastating floods in August 2018, causing a toll of at least 483 people. Such extreme events can be attributed to human-induced climate change (Callaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]). In this context, human actions that cause environmental harm need to be addressed, and it becomes essential to imbibe positive environmental values, specifically among young and adolescent children. Valuing the environment means prioritizing the environment over other aspects, resulting in pro-environmental behavior (Tadaki, Sinner, & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref2">60</reflink>]). When environmental values are considered individual priorities, altruism is closely connected with environmentalism.</p> <p>Humanistic altruism originates from the nature-influenced care about all of humanity. In contrast, biospheric altruism arises from the condition of the ecosystem or the concern for other species (Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Shwom, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]). A world at peace, free of war and conflict, social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak, equality, and equal justice for all constitute humanistic altruistic values and protecting the environment, preserving nature, unity with nature, fitting into nature, respecting the earth, and harmony with other species are the biospheric environmental values. While biospheric altruism allocates intrinsic value to the environment, humanistic altruism doesn't do that, even though it is influenced by nature (Dietz et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Even if the biospheric and humanistic altruism as environmental values are essential influences on pro-environmental behavior, the value-action gap exists as a paradox on the other side. Value-action gap happens when a person with ecological concerns fails to act in a green manner, generally or specifically in purchasing (Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref5">45</reflink>]). Studies provide evidence for the existence of such a gap. For instance, Fryxell and Lo ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>]) proved that environmental knowledge and values predict personal managerial behaviors (e.g. keeping informed of different company issues) without doing the same for overt actions. Likewise, the poor influence of environmental values is evident in purchase behavior and green home buying (Biel, Dahlstrand, & Grankvist, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; Hu, Geertman, & Hooimeijer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]). In light of the universally observed value-action gap, it is crucial to work on its reasons for filling it.</p> <p>Biel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]) propose the reasons for the value-action gap by showing that people engage in environmentally friendly purchase behavior only when the values are strong or exhibit habitual behavior. Similarly, the significance of deep values can also be seen in waste minimization behavior (Barr, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]). Furthermore, deep-rooted environmental values predict sustainable farming practices (Lincoln & Ardoin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]). McMillan, Wright, and Beazley ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>]) study proved a sustainable lifestyle due to the deepening of environmental values. Deepening means the upward movement in the internal hierarchy of people's values (Fryxell & Lo, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]). Likewise, pre-service science teachers with intrinsic environmental values showed environmental behaviors related to climate change (Higde, Oztekin, & Sahin, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]). In addition to the lack of deep or intrinsic values, a lack of knowledge is also a reason for the value-action gap (Chaplin & Wyton, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]). Though there are varied conceptions of environmental knowledge, the present study views environmental knowledge as understanding ecological phenomena and environmental actions (Janmaimool, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>]). Essentially, the former corresponds to general knowledge, and the latter corresponds to action knowledge.</p> <p>The study by Schneiderhan-Opel and Bogner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>]) posits that Environmental Education Programs should focus on environmental value development regardless of the setting in which the Environmental Education takes place. However, there aren't many studies in the extant literature that effectively educate environmental values. At the same time, there is evidence for intrinsic value development towards non-human beings among preschool children using empathy as a tool (Lithoxoidou, Georgopoulos, Dimitriou, & Xenitidou, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>]). Besides, McMillan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]) reported a deepening of ecocentric values by an introductory university-level environmental studies class and, consequently, a more sustainable lifestyle. Notably, the studies mentioned above focus on environmental values centered around biospheric values only, even though environmental values encompass both biospheric and humanistic altruistic values.</p> <p>As far as environmental knowledge is concerned, studies have proven a lack of such knowledge among different populations and different age groups. For instance, Ahi and Balci ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]) suggested including environmental concepts in preschool education as they observed limited environmental knowledge about forests and deforestation among preschool children (Ahi & Balci, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]). Tayci and Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref22">62</reflink>]) showed inadequate environmental knowledge among Turkish elementary school students. A similar finding was demonstrated by Garg and Lal ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]). They found that the environmental knowledge of ninth to eleventh-standard Indian students is inadequate.</p> <p>Similarly, a recent study conducted among senior middle school students in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea proved insufficient environmental knowledge (Choe, Kim, & Ri, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]). Furthermore, the climate change knowledge of Mozambican students aged 16–18 was found inadequate, calling for ecological literacy programs in schools to create eco-consciousness among students (García Vinuesa, Rui Mucova, Azeiteiro, Meira Cartea, & Pereira, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; Takyi, Asibey, Amponsah, & Opoku, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref26">61</reflink>]) In support of the recommendation for the environmental literacy programs, the study by Sousa, Correia, Leite, and Viseu ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref27">55</reflink>]) revealed significant environmental knowledge among students of a higher education institution in Portugal, and they attributed such an outcome to the training the students receive in the higher education institutions. In contrast, Emiru and Waktola ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]) revealed a suboptimal environmental awareness among higher education students in the USA and Ethiopia and recommended programs to increase environmental awareness among youth.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-3">Significance of empathy and reflective thinking in environmental education</hd> <p>Intrinsic values are higher, in-depth values, and empathy manipulation has proved effective in creating intrinsic environmental values (Adams, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]; Lithoxoidou et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref30">41</reflink>]). Empathy is the emotional response identical to another's feelings (Eisenberg & Knafo-Noam, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]). There are three distinct types of empathy based on how it is experienced. When someone can directly feel another person's feelings, it denotes emotional empathy. On the other hand, if a person can think from another person's point of view, it is the experience of cognitive empathy. Finally, the empathic concern is the ability to sense the help to be offered to a specific person (Goleman & Harvard Business Review, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present readings of Vygotsky's theory of sign (1997) discuss empathy in connection with using a sign. It also discusses reflective thinking (self-reflection) and conceives empathy and reflective thinking as two sides of the same coin (as cited in Gillespie, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]). Reflective thinking or self-reflection refers to the internal examination of an issue of concern evolving from an experience concerning the self, resulting in changes in the conceptual perspective (Kember et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref34">35</reflink>]). According to Vygotsky, a sign is a response that acts as a stimulus for another response and comprises two views: actor and observer. There will be a shift from observer to actor perspective when empathizing, and the reverse (actor-to-observer perspective) happens in the case of reflective thinking (as cited in Gillespie, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Expedition through previous Environmental Education Programs (EEP) shows traces of the manipulation of reflective thinking in different ways. For instance, Walker, Clary, and Wissehr ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref36">64</reflink>]) conducted an EEP that made the participants reflect and be conscious food consumers and responsible for their surroundings. The program manipulated reflective thinking to reflect on one's own experience and relate such an experience to the big picture. Similarly, Pan and Hsu ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]) allowed time for reflection as one of the several activities in an EEP. The program resulted in a positive, immediate, and continuous effect on environmental attitude, knowledge, and locus of control.</p> <p>Ito and Igano ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]) utilized reflective learning (through reflective journaling) and other techniques, such as backcasting and place-based education, to promote eco-initiatives. An OMEP (Organización Mundial para la Educación Preescolar) world project study on sustainability considered reflection as a concept of three dimensions of sustainability. The other concepts were respect, rethinking, reusing, reducing, recycling, and re-distributing (Engdahl, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). EEPs with reflective thinking manipulations positively impact different outcome measures. However, most of the interventions with reflective thinking included it as one of several techniques rather than adopting a metacognitive approach to the study. However, the EEP conducted by Rahmawati, Taylor, Taylor, Ridwan, and Mardiah ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]) in Indonesia manipulated reflective thinking for the participants to explore their value systems. It was to integrate ethical dilemma stories into STEM education. The study adopted metacognitive and cognitive approaches without touching the affective aspects.</p> <p>The present study focuses on conducting an EEP based on empathy (affective and cognitive approaches), reflective thinking (metacognitive approach), and information (cognitive approach) to enhance preadolescents' environmental values and knowledge. The study is based on the new research paradigm "sustainable education as a transformative model" since the old paradigms will not be conducive during extraordinary times (Sterling, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref41">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-4">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184519426-5">Design</hd> <p>The present study adopted a non-equivalent control group design (Singh, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref42">53</reflink>]). The researchers selected two classrooms from two separate schools based on permission from the school principals. The school from which the researchers got initial approval was set as the experimental group, and secondly sanctioned school was decided as the control group. The two groups were selected from different schools to avoid the control group's awareness regarding the intervention details. The schools were homogeneous regarding the syllabus, medium of instruction, infrastructure, and location. The age (11–12 years old) and gender (equal participation of males and females in both groups) were matched to ensure equivalence in the control and experimental groups.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-6">Pre-test</hd> <p>Environmental values assessment encompassed the estimation of biospheric and humanistic altruistic values and the environmental attitude (biospheric attitude), as values are the determinants of attitude (Stets & Biga, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref43">58</reflink>]). The Environmental Portrait Value Questionnaire (E-PVQ) developed by Bouman, Steg, and Kiers ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]) measured the biospheric and humanistic altruistic values. At the same time, the Children's Environmental Attitude and Knowledge Scale (CHEAKS), developed by Leeming, Dwyer, and Bracken ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>]), was administered to assess the study participants' environmental attitude and knowledge. Items 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 45, 47, 59, 61, 63, and 65 of the CHEAKS were adapted to the Indian context and validated by subject experts, as these items are US culture-specific. The reliability coefficients for the E-PVQ, CHEAKS attitude scale, and CHEAKS knowledge scale were estimated among the study sample as.826,.846, and.896, respectively. Besides environmental values and knowledge assessment, a nine-item parent observation checklist was developed based on the actual commitment items in the CHEAKS scale to measure parents' observations of the participants' environmental behavior.</p> <p>The experimental and control groups were compared on environmental values, attitude, and knowledge without doing the same on environmental behavior. Behavior measurement was possible only for the experimental group since most control participants didn't return the parent observation checklists.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-7">Intervention</hd> <p>The intervention was conducted for the experimental group. The empathy and reflective thinking-based EEP developed by the researchers formed the intervention. Empathy, reflective thinking, information on environmental phenomena and issues, and information on the effect of different human actions were manipulated in the intervention. A module was designed based on reviews and expert opinions for it.</p> <p>Eleven empathy-generating stories aimed at developing environmental values were included in the module. Stories were either written by the researchers or selected from different sources. All the stories were based on actual incidents in India or the rest of the world, reported in various magazines and websites. The topics addressed in the stories included human-induced environmental degradation, the destruction of Aravalli hill ranges, water scarcity, the atomic bomb blast, the war in Syria, human-animal conflict, online shopping and cutting of trees, the life of the differently abled, gender discrimination, water pollution, and Bhopal gas tragedy.</p> <p>Furthermore, the stories were chosen or written based on Hoffman's theory of moral development (Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]) and the article "best practices in developing empathy towards wildlife" (Aquarium, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>]). In addition to the stories, we developed empathy exercises based on these reviews. Notably, we manipulated emotional empathy through the stories and cognitive empathy through the empathy exercises. Apart from generating empathy, the stories were written or selected to convey information on environmental phenomena and the effects of different human actions. In addition to the stories, knowledge exercises were designed based on the items in the CHEAKS knowledge scale. The knowledge exercises covered the following topics: ecology, the significance of dams, non-renewable energy, India's water crisis, human-elephant conflict, Greenpeace India foundation, species extinction, overfishing, consumerism, overconsumption, recycling, precycling, water pollution, solid waste and landfills, and air pollution.</p> <p>A thought diary was set according to Gibb's reflective learning cycle for performing the reflection tasks. They were aimed at the deepening of values. We made the intervention module in the form of student workbooks. Finally, a subject expert validated the module.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-8">Post-test</hd> <p>It was carried out for the experimental and control groups on the same variables considered for the pre-test. Additionally, specific responses to activity 5 (analysis of the situation) in the eleven thought diaries of student workbooks were tabulated and counted to understand the environmental action knowledge acquisition among the participants in the experimental group as a result of the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-9">Follow-up test</hd> <p>It was conducted for the experimental group on environmental values, attitude, knowledge, and behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-10">Participants and sampling</hd> <p>Children develop abstract representation ability at seven to eight years, and they can be trained in reflective thinking from late childhood onwards (Valkanova, Jackson, & Watts, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref48">63</reflink>]). Eleven to twelve-year-old children were selected for this study based on the predetermined criteria. The study followed particular inclusion and exclusion criteria to obtain uniformity, consistency and to overcome the confounders (Garg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]). Eleven to twelve-year-old children studying English medium in any of the Indian board schools was the inclusion criterion. At the same time, participation history in any other EEP was the exclusion criterion.</p> <p>Since the study required several sessions lasting two to three months, keeping a probability sample for such a duration was challenging. Hence, two sixth-grade classrooms in two semi-urban schools in Kerala, India, were selected through purposive sampling. Considering different inclusion and exclusion criteria, 86 students were part of the final study. Among those 86 students, only 55 consented to participate in the study. At the same time, only 53 students could participate in both pre and post-tests. Due to the incomplete responses, we excluded seven students, and finally, 46 students participated in the study, with 26 participants in the experimental and 20 in the control group. In the experimental group, 54% were females and 46% were males. Similarly, the control group had 45% females and 55% males.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-11">Procedure</hd> <p>The researchers started the study with the approval of the affiliated institution's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The consent was obtained from school authorities and parents, and the assent was obtained from the participants for the study. The first day of the study started with the pre-test for the experimental and the control groups. The intervention started on day two for the experimental group, and an intervention session consisted of a story, empathy exercises, reflection tasks, and knowledge exercises. At the same time, there were no knowledge exercises with sessions targeting humanistic altruistic value development.</p> <p>A session started with an empathy-generating story representing one or more environmental values. Consequently, the researcher discussed the meaning of the story title and its connection to the story. Following that, a reflection task of choosing a smiley sticker identical to the participant's feelings from the thought diary and sticking the same in the specified workbook space was given. We framed the activity to enhance participants' awareness of their feelings about the experience. A story-related activity (empathy exercise) followed it to evoke empathy further. Empathy exercises included perspective-taking, role-play, and group discussions.</p> <p>The second reflection task followed the empathy exercises. Five steps in Gibb's reflective learning cycle regarding a story and its related tasks comprised the second reflection task: description of the experience, feelings related to the experience, evaluation of the good and bad of the experience, analysis of the situation, conclusion and action plan (Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]). The reflection tasks were the same for all the sessions. In addition to the reflection tasks, there were knowledge exercises in sessions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10. They followed the second reflection task. The stories were played through recorded audio clips, and the participants followed them in their workbooks. We presented knowledge exercises through different video clips. There were eleven sessions of 80 min, and the intervention finished in twenty-two days, taking forty minutes a day.</p> <p>The post-test was administered to experimental and control groups on the final day, that is, on the twenty-fourth day. After the post-test, the researchers administered the intervention to the control group. A follow-up test was conducted for the experimental group after three months through Google Forms due to the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> <p>Researchers assured the confidentiality of the participants' details and assigned a unique identity number to each participant to make the details anonymous. After completing the data collection, researchers debriefed the study's purpose to all the participants. The participants weren't offered any incentive to take part in the study. The data was stored in a password-protected file on a personal computer. This study didn't raise any potential risks to the participants.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-12">Data analysis</hd> <p>After the data entry and cleaning, we conducted statistical tests using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 software to analyze the data. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed ranks test, Cohen's d' calculation, Independent Samples t-test, and Mann-Whitney u test were used.</p> <p>Besides, we tabulated and counted the participants' environmental action knowledge in the responses to activity 5 in the eleven thought diaries of student workbooks. Responses indicating specific behaviors, that is, the reactions that have answers to the question "What action is going to be taken?" were considered. To select such responses, we categorized verbs into two based on whether they denote particular actions. Words like save, harm, respect, love, protect, conserve, hurt, and forgive were omitted as they couldn't represent specific actions. At the same time, verbs like cut, close, put, kill, and throw were considered since they denote particular actions. The sentences with word combinations like killing Mother Earth, destroying nature, etc., were omitted as they don't indicate specific actions. Likewise, repeating action learnings for the same participant were omitted. Each researcher followed the same procedure independently until a consensus was reached.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-13">Results</hd> <p>The results obtained through the data analysis are presented in the following tables and figures.</p> <p>Tables 1 and 2 show the experimental group's pre-, post, and follow-up test comparisons. There is no significant difference between the pre and post-test scores on the environmental values of the experimental group. However, there is a significant difference between its pre and post-test scores on environmental attitude, knowledge, and behavior (<emph>p</emph><.05, <emph>p</emph><.001, and <emph>p</emph><.05, respectively). Specifically, the program has a medium effect on environmental attitude (Cohen's d'=.403) and behavior (Cohen's d'=.553) and a large impact (Cohen's d'=1.102) on environmental knowledge.</p> <p>Table 1. Parametric and non-parametric statistics of the scores of the experimental group in pre and post-tests.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variables</td><td /><td>Paired samples t test</td><td>Wilcoxon signed ranks test</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre-test</td><td>Post-test</td><td /><td /><td>Negative ranks</td><td>Positive ranks</td><td /></tr><tr><td>n</td><td>Mean/SD</td><td>Mean/SD</td><td>t</td><td>d</td><td>Mean ranks/sum of ranks</td><td>Mean ranks/sum of ranks</td><td>Z</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Environmental value</td><td char=".">25</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">13/156</td><td char=".">9.70/97</td><td char=".">−0.960</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">143.81/15.458</td><td char=".">150.31/16.740</td><td char=".">−2.077<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.403</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">70.15/21.585</td><td char=".">106.62/41.511</td><td char=".">−5.131<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">1.102</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental behaviour</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">6.11/1.745</td><td char=".">7.00/1.455</td><td char=".">−2.250<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.553</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Verbal commitment</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">44.92/6.368</td><td char=".">48.46/6.501</td><td char=".">−2.770<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Actual commitment</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">46.12/6.477</td><td char=".">46.62/7.505</td><td char=".">−0.369</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Energy attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">24.08/3.475</td><td char=".">24.62/3.488</td><td char=".">−0.560</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">23.12/4.246</td><td char=".">23.69/4.008</td><td char=".">−0.607</td><td /><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Affect</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">12.25/73.50</td><td char=".">11.91/202.50</td><td char=".">−1.967<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Animal attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">10.19/81.50</td><td char=".">13.66/218.50</td><td char=".">−1.975<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>General attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">12.25/98</td><td char=".">12.63/202</td><td char=".">−1.489</td></tr><tr><td>Pollution attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">7.90/39.50</td><td char=".">12.56/213.50</td><td char=".">−2.840<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Water attitude</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">2/2</td><td char=".">13.96/349</td><td char=".">4.419<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Animal knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">9.25/37</td><td char=".">10.81/173</td><td char=".">−2.608<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>General knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">10.10/50.50</td><td char=".">8.54/102.50</td><td char=".">−1.252</td></tr><tr><td>Pollution knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">8/16</td><td char=".">9.69/155</td><td char=".">−3.080<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Water knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">17/34</td><td char=".">10.95/219</td><td char=".">−3.043<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Energy knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">10.50/42</td><td char=".">11.12/189</td><td char=".">−2.640<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Recycling knowledge</td><td char=".">26</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">6.38/25.50</td><td char=".">12.09/205.50</td><td char=".">−3.164<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 n = Number of participants, SD = Standard Deviation, t = t-test value, Z = Z test value.</p> <ulist> <item>2 = <emph>P value significant at.05 level,</emph></item> <item>3 <emph>=P value significant at.01 level,</emph></item> <item>4 <emph>=P value significant at.001 level.</emph></item> </ulist> <p>Table 2. Parametric and non-parametric statistics of the scores of the experimental group in post and follow-up tests.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variables</td><td /><td>Paired samples t test</td><td>Wilcoxon signed ranks test</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Post-test</td><td>Follow-up test</td><td /><td>Negative ranks</td><td>Positive ranks</td><td /></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>Mean/SD</td><td>Mean/SD</td><td>t</td><td>Mean ranks/sum of ranks</td><td>Mean ranks/sum of ranks</td><td>Z</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Environmental attitude</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">11.07/77.50</td><td char=".">8.50/93.50</td><td char=".">−0.349</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental knowledge</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">9.30/93</td><td char=".">9.75/78</td><td char=".">−0.329</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental behaviour</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">7/1.612</td><td char=".">7.36/1.286</td><td char=".">−0.770</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Verbal commitment</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">49.11/7.120</td><td char=".">48.78/6.440</td><td char=".">−0.203</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Affect</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">8.07/56.50</td><td char=".">5.75/34.50</td><td char=".">−0.772</td></tr><tr><td>Animal attitude</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">25.28/3.045</td><td char=".">24.06/3.171</td><td char=".">−1.50</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Pollution attitude</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">25.72/3.340</td><td char=".">25/3.481</td><td char=".">.720</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Water attitude</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">8.44/76</td><td char=".">8.57/60</td><td char=".">−0.417</td></tr><tr><td>Animal knowledge</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">6.20/31</td><td char=".">5.83/35</td><td char=".">−0.183</td></tr><tr><td>Pollution knowledge</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">14.67/7.761</td><td char=".">12.67/7.096</td><td char=".">.972</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Water knowledge</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">6.50/32.50</td><td char=".">5.58/33.50</td><td char=".">−0.045</td></tr><tr><td>Energy knowledge</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">18.33/8.353</td><td char=".">17.67/8.353</td><td char=".">.265</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling knowledge</td><td char=".">18</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">5.08/30.50</td><td char=".">4.83/14.50</td><td char=".">−0.979</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 n = Number of participants, SD = Standard Deviation, t = t-test value, Z = Z test value.</p> <p>Table 3. Experimental group'sparticipant wise environmental action knowledge acquisition as evidenced through the participant responses to the student workbooks</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Sl no.</td><td>Participant code</td><td>No. of environmental actions learned</td><td>Learned environmental actions</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Don't cut trees,</p></list-item><list-item><p>Close all the factories which produce harmful gases.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>We should not put bomb in wars.</p></list-item><list-item><p>We should not kill animals.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't cut trees,</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Don't put waste on road, only in waste box.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't cut trees,</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">11</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Don't throw plastics in our environment.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't kill mountains for mining.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Give children right education</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't kill animals</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't buy artificial items.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't make laugh of deaf people.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't build factories.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't dump waste to rivers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>reduce factories.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>We should not cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Plant trees</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Use water as less as possible.</p></list-item><list-item><p>We should never cut tress.</p></list-item><list-item><p>We should not use products that harm nature.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>We should not kill animals</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">7</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Never cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Never do mining in mountains.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Plant more and more plants.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Reduce factories.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Never dump garbage in rivers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't use plastic.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Never waste water.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">4</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>To recycle</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do not dump waste in oceans.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Never put plastic in rivers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't use plastic, we all can use cloth and jute bag</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">3</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Don't mine the earth.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do not cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do not laugh at them.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">3</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>I learnt that we should save mother earth by planting trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Cutting trees is not good for nature.</p></list-item><list-item><p>We can make something creative from piece of garbage.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Stop cutting trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>We should not use products that harm nature</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>We should not stand and watch, if someone asks for help, we should help them.</p></list-item><list-item><p>I want people to use cloth bag or jute bag.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">3</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>If we cut more we have to plant.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't dump garbage on river.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">6</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Plant more plants.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do not cut trees</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't mine the earth.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't catch animals.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't waste card board.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Help the poor with food.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Off water taps.</p></list-item><list-item><p>War is not good, try to campaign your ideas.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Don't cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't fight with bomb.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">5</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Don't cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Always close the tap which is running.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't kill animals for their properties.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't cut trees.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Don't do online shopping.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">0</td><td>Nil</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Frequency of environmental action knowledge among the experimental group participants as evidenced through the participant responses to the student workbooks.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Sl no.</td><td>Learned environmental action</td><td>Value orientation</td><td>No. of participants learned the action</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Don't cut trees</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Close all factories which produce harmful gases</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>We should not put bomb in wars/don't fight with bomb</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>We should not kill animals</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Don't put waste on road, only in waste box/Don't throw plastics in our environment</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>We should not do mining in mountains</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>We should not use products that harm nature</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Don't make laugh of deaf people</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Don't build factories</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Don't dump waste to rivers/oceans</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Reduce factories</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Use as less water as possible</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Plant more and more plants</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Don't use plastic</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>To recycle</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>We can make something creative from piece of garbage</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>We should not stand and watch if someone asks for help, we should help them/help the poor with food</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Use cloth bag or jute bag</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Don't catch animals</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Don't waste cardboard</td><td>Biospheric</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Campaign against war</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Don't do online shopping</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Give children right education</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Look after safety rules</td><td>Humanistic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The scores on different subscales of environmental attitude indicate positive changes in verbal commitment and affect (<emph>p</emph><.05) after the intervention. Concerning various topics of attitude and knowledge measurement, the program significantly affects animal attitude (<emph>p</emph><.05) and knowledge (<emph>p</emph><.01), water attitude (<emph>p</emph><.001) and knowledge (<emph>p</emph><.01), and pollution attitude and knowledge (<emph>p</emph><.01). The post and follow-up test scores on environmental attitude, knowledge, and behavior show that the intervention's impact on these variables was retained three months after the program. The acquisition of knowledge of environmental actions ranged from zero to eleven.</p> <p>The comparisons between the experimental and control groups in the pre-test on environmental values, attitude, and knowledge showed that the two groups significantly differed on all three variables. However, finding two schools in the exact location with homogeneous features was difficult. Besides, the non-cooperative attitude of many of the school authorities exacerbated the situation. Therefore, the researchers had to proceed with the same groups as the experimental and control ones.</p> <p>Figure 1 shows that the difference between the experimental and control groups' mean ranks increased from the pre-test (<emph>p</emph><.05) to the post-test (<emph>p</emph><.01). Figure 2 shows the increase in the difference between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups from pre-test (<emph>p</emph><.05) to the post-test (<emph>p</emph><.001) on the environmental attitude. Likewise, it is clear from Figure 3 that the difference in environmental knowledge mean scores between experimental and control groups increased from the pre-test (<emph>p</emph><.01) to the post-test (<emph>p</emph><.001).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Bar graph showing the mean ranks on the experimental and control groups' environmental values in the pre-test and post-test.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Bar graph showing the mean scores on the experimental and control groups' environmental attitude in the pre-test and post-test.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Bar graph showing the mean scores on the experimental and control groups' environmental knowledge in the pre-test and post-test.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The program's effectiveness regarding environmental values, attitude, knowledge, and behavior was assessed. Two-tier measurements were included for the environmental values: directly through the E-PVQ questionnaire and indirectly through attitude measurement.</p> <p>The direct assessment of environmental values through the E-PVQ questionnaire showed no change after the intervention. It may be due to the difficulty of directly assessing values. Instead, we can infer the underlying values from evaluating attitudes (Simonetti, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref51">52</reflink>]). Hence, we measured participants' environmental attitude to understand the intervention's effectiveness on their values. Such an assessment resulted in a positive result by showing a significant difference between the pre and post-test attitude scores – the higher mean score in the post-test points to the intervention's impact on its participants. We found that the program had a medium effect on participants' attitude, indicated by the effect size.</p> <p>The EEP's influence on its participants' environmental attitude depends on its content (Sellmann & Bogner, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref52">50</reflink>]). Environmental Education interventions with a positive impact on environmental attitude had contents like the incorporation of student experiences into the learning process, scientific lectures, learning through research and discovery, and time for reflection (Collado, Rosa, & Corraliza, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref53">12</reflink>]; Hamalosmanodlu & Güven, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]; Karthe, Reeh, Walther, Niemann, & Siegmund, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref55">34</reflink>]; Mittelstaedt, Sanker, & VanderVeer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref56">43</reflink>]; Pan & Hsu, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref57">44</reflink>]; Sousa, Quintino, Palhas, Rodrigues, & Teixeira, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref58">56</reflink>]; Kumari & Umashree, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref59">37</reflink>]). Among the above, we manipulated reflective thinking in the EEP. At the same time, the interventions without effective results on environmental attitude show that none had reflective thinking as their content (Dimopoulos, Paraskevopoulos, & Pantis, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]; Legault & Pelletier, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]; Smith-Sebasto & Semrau, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]). Reflective thinking's presence and absence in the interventions with and without environmental attitude change reveal its significance in bringing about positive changes in environmental attitude. Post and follow-up test comparisons show no significant difference between the two tests' attitude scores, indicating the intervention's continuous effect. Evidence exists for the constant results of manipulating reflective thinking (Pan & Hsu, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref63">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study by Rahmawati et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref64">46</reflink>]) is similar to the present study by using reflective thinking on stories. Instead of the empathy stories in the present study, they implemented ethical dilemma stories in STEAM education, and the participants reflected on the advantages and disadvantages of ethical dilemmas related to environmental problems. The study participants could explore their value systems, indicating the effectiveness of reflective thinking on environmental values. Besides, empathy is also a proven tool for developing environmental values (Lithoxoidou et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]). This study's manipulation of empathy and reflective thinking might have improved environmental values, as manifested through enhanced environmental attitude. At the same time, the improved attitude scores point to enhancement in biospheric values only since the attitude measurement through CHEAKS doesn't encompass humanistic altruism.</p> <p>The intervention has a large immediate effect on its participants' environmental knowledge, particularly general knowledge. Furthermore, the post-follow-up comparison revealed the intervention's continuous impact on the same. The study by Richter, Rendigs, and Maminirina ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref66">47</reflink>]) supports such a result, saying that addressing only up to the lower dimensions of Bloom's taxonomy is adequate to affect the participants' environmental knowledge. The topic-wise analysis of environmental knowledge reveals enhancement in participants' awareness of recycling, energy, pollution, water, and animals, without having the same on general topics. In line with the findings, an EEP conducted about water in Spain among eight to sixteen-year-olds positively impacted the participants' knowledge about water (Del Rey et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]). Environmental issues on general topics might not be recognized as environmental issues as they are not anchored on specific topics.</p> <p>Regarding environmental action knowledge, there is evidence for participant-wise knowledge acquisition of up to eleven to-be-practiced actions through the intervention sessions. Though eight participants learned no environmental behaviors, most reported having learned one to seven activities. There are twenty-four discovered environmental actions: eighteen biospheric-oriented and seven humanistic-oriented. Notably, the most prominent environmental action knowledge is against cutting trees. Besides, there is the trace of knowledge acquisition for nature, animal, and water conservation; waste and pollution management; refusing and replacing plastics with other materials; recycling and reusing. Besides, there are humanistic altruistic value-based actions like campaigning against war and helping people experiencing poverty with food.</p> <p>We assessed the parent-reported participants' environmental behavior to understand the influence of environmental values and knowledge on behavior. The parent observations of participant behavior showed a positive medium effect of the intervention on the study group's environmental behavior. The post-follow-up comparison shows that the positive impact was retained three months after the intervention. The positive influence on environmental behavior without any outdoor activities underscores the finding that direct experiences with nature are not necessary for influencing environmental behavior (Collado et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref68">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>In light of the topic-wise analysis of environmental attitude, we observed positive changes in participants' attitude about water, animals, and pollution without having such changes in energy, general, and recycling attitude. Despite the coverage of those topics in the intervention, the lack of improvement may be due to the lack of baseline orientation to such areas. Literature supports it by proving the Indian student's unawareness of energy conservation and the cause of pollution (Shobeiri, Omidvar, & Prahallada, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further analysis of the attitude by taking different subscales of environmental attitude into account, we observed immediate and continuous positive change in the environmental attitude mainly in terms of verbal commitment and affect, not in terms of actual commitment. Hence, the participants verbally expressed commitment to the environment without showing that in their behavior. However, the intervention has proven to positively impact the participants' environmental action knowledge and their parent-reported environmental behaviors. Therefore, such a result may be due to the possibility of better reporting of attitude than the same for actions (Kollmuss & Agyeman, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref70">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous study results shed light on the possible future environmental behaviors resulting from the empathy and reflective thinking-based EEP. Environmental values are crucial for environmentally friendly consumer behavior (Biel et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref71">6</reflink>]), pro-environmental printing behavior (Suleri & Cavagnaro, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref72">59</reflink>]), personal managerial behaviors (Fryxell & Lo, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]), sustainable farming practices (Lincoln & Ardoin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]), and adoption of a lower-carbon lifestyle (Howell, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref75">30</reflink>]). The environmental values influence waste minimization behavior and transition from habitual behavior to environmentally friendly purchase behavior when firm (Barr, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]; Biel et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>]). The present intervention enhanced environmental values and knowledge acquisition on waste minimization behaviors like recycling, reusing, and environmentally friendly consumer behaviors. Therefore, the study participants may exhibit such behaviors in the future.</p> <p>The experimental-control group comparisons revealed intervention effectiveness by showing more significant differences between the two groups on environmental values, attitude, and knowledge in the post-test with a higher mean rank or score for the experimental group. Many study results support such a finding by proving the intervention effectiveness on the environmental attitude and knowledge of the experimental group (Aguilar-Jurado, Gil-Madrona, Ortega-Dato, & Zamorano-García, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]; Bogner, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]; Frehm, Gravinese, & Toth, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref80">19</reflink>]; Karthe et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref81">34</reflink>]; Pan & Hsu, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref82">44</reflink>]; Sarsour, Omran, Abed, & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref83">48</reflink>]; Sousa et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref84">56</reflink>]; White, Eberstein, & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref85">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-15">Implications</hd> <p>Empathy stories can act as effective learning tools for Environmental Education upon which the application of reflective thinking can provide better learning experiences. It gives way to effective Environmental Education even in situations that do not allow direct exposure to nature. For instance, in urban settings, people cannot experience nature directly, and during extraordinary times, going out to nature is risky. Furthermore, since reflective thinking and empathy-based Environmental Education doesn't require out-of-class activities, it can be easily incorporated with school subjects dealing with environmental aspects. Empathy stories can be prepared to address location-specific environmental issues as they effectively address environmental phenomena and issues in general, and reflecting on those stories can be utilized to teach specific environmental behaviors. Overall, the study findings imply the significance of integrating the cognitive, metacognitive, and affective approaches in Environmental Education.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-16">Directions for future research</hd> <p>Empathy and reflective-thinking-based EEPs should be topic-specific and should give more importance to energy, recycling, and general environmental aspects in the future. Environmental behavior should be assessed in future EEPs based on actual behavior rather than self-reports or parent reports.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-17">Limitations</hd> <p>As the intervention required several sessions, it was challenging to maintain a sample selected through randomization, and we had to delimit our study to a quasi-experimental design. Therefore, the results are not generalizable. Participants' absenteeism on intervention days and school authorities' allocation of physical training periods during the intervention might have negatively affected the study results. Due to absenteeism, some participants missed some sessions and might not have developed the intended value. Participants were not ready to miss their physical training periods, so they were reluctant to attend the intervention on such days.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>Empathy and reflective thinking manipulations through stories and thought diaries effectively create intrinsic environmental values by influencing the participants' thoughts and emotions. The presentation of information on environmental phenomena, issues, and the effects of human actions through knowledge exercises and stories enhanced participants' general and action knowledge about the environment. The action knowledge was evidenced through reflective thinking. The positive effect of reflective thinking and empathy-based EEP is reflected in the conative dimension by observing an improvement in participants' environmental behavior by their parents. In effect, reflective thinking and empathy-based EEP developed intrinsic environmental values and adequate knowledge among its participants and it was reflected in their behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-19">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>I thank Bhagyalakshmi K.C., who reviewed the paper for critical suggestions. I also thank the school authorities who helped with the smooth conduction of the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0184519426-20">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>There are no competing interests to declare.</p> <ref id="AN0184519426-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, W. J. (1974). Value development of youth: An emerging responsibility for the school of tomorrow. American Secondary Education, 4 (2), 4 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref78" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aguilar-Jurado, M. Á., Gil-Madrona, P., Ortega-Dato, J. F., & Zamorano-García, D. (2019). Effects of an educational glass recycling program against environmental pollution in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (24), 5108. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahi, B., & Balci, S. (2018). Ecology and the child: Determination of the knowledge level of children aged four to five about concepts of forest and deforestation. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27 (3), 234 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1349372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref47" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aquarium, S. (2015). Best practices in developing empathy toward wildlife. https://www.informalscience. org/sites/default/files/Empathy% 20best% 20practices_lit% 20review. pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigating the 'value-action' gap. Geography, 91 (1), 43 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2006.12094149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Biel, A., Dahlstrand, U., & Grankvist, G. (2005). Habitual and value-guided purchase behavior. AMBIO: Journal of the Human Environment, 34 (4), 360 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref79" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental Education, 29 (4), 17 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref44" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bouman, T., Steg, L., & Kiers, H. A. (2018). Measuring values in environmental research: A test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Callaway, E., Else, H., Kwon, D., Ledford, H., Mallapaty, S., Maxmen, A., ... Van Noorden, R. (2021). Nature's 10: Ten people who helped shape science in 2021. Nature, 600 (7890), 591 – 604. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03621-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaplin, G., & Wyton, P. (2014). Student engagement with sustainability: Understanding the value–action gap. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15 (4), 404 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2012-0029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choe, J. H., Kim, C. H., & Ri, G. H. (2020). An investigation on the environmental knowledge and attitudes of senior middle school students in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 29 (2), 146 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2019.1678276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collado, S., Rosa, C. D., & Corraliza, J. A. (2020). The effect of a nature-based environmental education program on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors: A randomized -experiment with primary schools. Sustainability, 12 (17), 6817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Del Rey, R., Ojeda, M., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Nieves Sánchez-Díaz, M., Morgado, B., & Lasaga, M. J. (2022). Environmental education: Effects on knowledge, attitudes and perceptions, and gender differences. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 31 (4), 282 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2021.1977004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30 (1), 335 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimopoulos, D., Paraskevopoulos, S., & Pantis, J. D. (2008). The cognitive and attitudinal effects of a conservation educational module on elementary school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 39 (3), 47 – 61. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.3.47-61</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, S., & Knafo-Noam. (2015). Prosocial development. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), The handbook of psychology and developmental science (pp. 610 – 656). New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emiru, T. S., & Waktola, D. K. (2018). The environmental awareness of higher education students and the implications for the Paris Climate Agreement: Empirical evidences from Ethiopia and USA. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27 (3), 216 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1349375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engdahl, I. (2015). Early childhood education for sustainability: The OMEP world project. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47 (3), 347 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-015-0149-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frehm, V., Gravinese, P. M., & Toth, L. T. (2019). Cultivating future environmental stewards. Florida Scientist, 82 (4), 112 – 121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. (2003). The influence of environmental knowledge and values on managerial behaviors on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination of managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), 45 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024773012398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García Vinuesa, A., Rui Mucova, S. A., Azeiteiro, U. M., Meira Cartea, P. Á., & Pereira, M. (2022). Mozambican students' knowledge and perceptions about climate change: An exploratory study in Pemba City. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 31 (1), 5 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2020.1863671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garg, R. (2016). Methodology for research I. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60 (9), 640 – 645. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garg, A., & Lal, P. (2013). Perception of causes, consequences and solutions to global warming among school children in Delhi. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 4 (3), 27. https://doi.org/10.5958/j.0976-5506.4.3.072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford : Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie, A. (2007). The social basis of self-reflection. In V. Jaan & R. Alberto (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 678 – 691). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goleman, D. In Harvard Business Review. (2017). What is empathy? And why it's important. Emotional intelligence empathy (pp. 1 – 11). Boston, Massschusetts : Harvard Business Review Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamalosmanodlu, M., & Güven, E. (2014). The effect of environmental education based on interdisciplinary approach to students' environmental attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11 (4), 47 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higde, E., Oztekin, C., & Sahin, E. (2017). Turkish pre-service science teachers' awareness, beliefs, values, and behaviours pertinent to climate change. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26 (3), 253 – 263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1330040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howell, R. A. (2013). It's not (just) "the environment, stupid!" Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23 (1), 281 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, H., Geertman, S., & Hooimeijer, P. (2016). Personal values that drive the choice for green apartments in Nanjing China: The limited role of environmental values. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31 (4), 659 – 675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9494-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ito, H., & Igano, C. (2020). Place-based environmental education to promote eco-initiatives: The case of Yokohama, Japan. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7 (1), 292 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1794950</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janmaimool, P. (2017). Investigating pro-environmental behaviors of well-educated people in Thailand. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 37 (13/14), 788 – 807. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-02-2017-0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karthe, D., Reeh, T., Walther, M., Niemann, S., & Siegmund, A. (2016). School-based environmental education in the context of a research and development project on integrated water resources management: Experiences from Mongolia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75 (18), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6036-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kember, D., Leung, D. Y., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., ... Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25 (4), 381 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumari, V. S., & Umashree, D. K. (2017). Effectiveness of cooperative learning and lecture demonstration method on developing ecocentric attitude among secondary school students. Journal on School Educational Technology, 12 (3), 44 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., & Bracken, B. A. (1995). Children's environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. Journal of Environmental Education, 26 (3), 22 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legault, L., & Pelletier, L. G. (2000). Impact of an environmental education program on students' and parents' attitudes, motivation, and behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du Comportement, 32 (4), 243 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, N. K., & Ardoin, N. M. (2016). Cultivating values: Environmental values and sense of place as correlates of sustainable agricultural practices. Agriculture and Human Values, 33 (2), 389 – 401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9613-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lithoxoidou, L. S., Georgopoulos, A. D., Dimitriou, A. T., & Xenitidou, S. C. (2017). Trees have a soul too!" Developing empathy and environmental values in early childhood. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 5 (1), 68 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMillan, E. E., Wright, T., & Beazley, K. (2004). Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students' values. Journal of Environmental Education, 35 (3), 19 – 27. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.35.3.19-27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mittelstaedt, R., Sanker, L., & VanderVeer, B. (1999). Impact of a week-long experiential education program on environmental attitude and awareness. Journal of Experiential Education, 22 (3), 138 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382599902200306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, C. T., & Hsu, S. J. (2020). Effects of a one-day environmental education program on sixth-graders' environmental literacy at a nature center in eastern Taiwan. Sustainability, 12 (12), 5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pickett-Baker, J., & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (5), 281 – 293. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810890516</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rahmawati, Y., Taylor, E., Taylor, P. C., Ridwan, A., & Mardiah, A. (2022). Students' engagement in education as sustainability: Implementing an ethical dilemma-STEAM teaching model in chemistry learning. Sustainability, 14 (6), 3554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063554</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, T., Rendigs, A., & Maminirina, C. P. (2015). Conservation messages in speech bubbles: Evaluation of an environmental education comic distributed in elementary schools in Madagascar. Sustainability, 7 (7), 8855 – 8880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078855</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarsour, A., Omran, A., Abed, Y., & Robinson, G. (2014). Evaluation of an environmental health awareness program in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 2 (10), 249 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneiderhan-Opel, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2021). Cannot see the forest for the trees? Comparing learning outcomes of a field trip vs. a classroom approach. Forests, 12 (9), 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sellmann, D., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Effects of a 1-day environmental education intervention on environmental attitudes and connectedness with nature. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 1077 – 1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0155-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shobeiri, S. M., Omidvar, B., & Prahallada, N. N. (2007). A comparative study of environmental awareness among secondary school students in Iran and India. International Journal of Environmental Research, 1 (1), 28 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonetti, S. J. (2008). Children's environmental values: Comparison of a Toronto district school board ecoschool and non-ecoschool [Master thesis]. Royal Roads University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, A. K. (2015). Tests, measurements and research methods in behavioural sciences. Patna : Bharati Bhawan (P & D).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & Semrau, H. J. (2004). Evaluation of the environmental education program at the New Jersey School of Conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, 36 (1), 3 – 18. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.1.3-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sousa, S., Correia, E., Leite, J., & Viseu, C. (2021). Environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of higher education students: A case study in Portugal. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 30 (4), 348 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2020.1838122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sousa, E., Quintino, V., Palhas, J., Rodrigues, A. M., & Teixeira, J. (2016). Can environmental education actions change public attitudes? An example using the pond habitat and associated biodiversity. PloS One, 11 (5), e0154440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research, 16 (5–6), 511 – 528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21 (4), 398 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9558.2003.00196.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suleri, J., & Cavagnaro, E. (2016). Promoting pro-environmental printing behaviour: The role of ICT barriers and sustainable values. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 12 (2), 158 – 174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tadaki, M., Sinner, J., & Chan, K. (2017). Making sense of environmental values: A typology of concepts. Ecology and Society, 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takyi, S. A., Asibey, M. O., Amponsah, O., & Opoku, F. (2023). Creating eco-consciousness from the perspective of students: An assessment of the level of environmental literacy among students in Kumasi. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 32 (4), 323 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2023.2200200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tayci, F., & Uysal, F. (2012). A study for determining the elemantary school students' environmental knowledge and environmental attitude level. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5718 – 5722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valkanova, Y., Jackson, A., & Watts, D. M. (2004). Enhancing self-reflection in children: The use of digital video in the primary science classroom. Journal of E-Literacy, 1, 42 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, R., Clary, R. M., & Wissehr, C. (2017). Embedding sustainability instruction across content areas: Best classroom practices from informal environmental education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65 (2), 185 – 193. https://doi.org/10.5408/16-167.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, R. L., Eberstein, K., & Scott, D. M. (2018). Birds in the playground: Evaluating the effectiveness of an urban environmental education project in enhancing school children's awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards local wildlife. PloS One, 13 (3), e0193993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193993</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sreeja Gopinath and Aneesh Kumar</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref85"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1467999
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effect of an Environmental Education Program Based on Empathy and Reflective Thinking on Preadolescents' Environmental Values and Knowledge
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sreeja+Gopinath%22">Sreeja Gopinath</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0993-303X">0000-0002-0993-303X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aneesh+Kumar%22">Aneesh Kumar</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1081-7201">0000-0003-1081-7201</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Research+in+Geographical+and+Environmental+Education%22"><i>International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(2):100-119.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; 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: 2025
– 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="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Climate%22">Climate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reflection%22">Reflection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Influences%22">Environmental Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Telling%22">Story Telling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Development%22">Cognitive Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Objectives%22">Affective Objectives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metacognition%22">Metacognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Place+Based+Education%22">Place Based Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22India%22">India</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10382046.2024.2349430
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1038-2046<br />1747-7611
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: As a remedial measure to human-induced climate change, it is imperative to develop intrinsic altruistic values and adequate knowledge of environmental phenomena and behavior to act in favor of the environment. The study aims to assess the effect of an Environmental Education Program (EEP) based on empathy, reflective thinking, and information on preadolescents' environmental values and knowledge. For that, a non-equivalent control group design was used. Data collection was done through questionnaires, checklists, and participant thought diaries. Forty-six students (eleven-to-twelve-year-old children) selected through purposive sampling from the sixth standard of two semi-urban schools in Kerala, India, constituted the sample. In the intervention, empathy was manipulated through stories and empathy exercises, reflective thinking through thought diaries, and information on environmental phenomena, issues, and the effect of human actions through stories and knowledge exercises. Empathy, reflective thinking, and information manipulations positively influenced the participants' environmental values and knowledge, and the effect manifested in cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions. The study has implications for conducting Environmental Education indoors effectively by integrating affective, cognitive, and metacognitive approaches. Empathy stories can be utilized to address various environmental phenomena and issues. Reflective thinking on environmental phenomena and issues can be applied to teach appropriate environmental behaviors.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1467999
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1467999
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10382046.2024.2349430
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 100
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Climate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reflection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Story Telling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Objectives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metacognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Place Based Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: India
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effect of an Environmental Education Program Based on Empathy and Reflective Thinking on Preadolescents' Environmental Values and Knowledge
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sreeja Gopinath
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aneesh Kumar
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1038-2046
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1747-7611
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1