Table of Comparisons
for the ecological culture extreme groups "1" and "3"

School Activity Type

Conservation Knowledge

Environmental Motivation

n

little or no

clean up

every thing

active

0-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-100%

MOT4

MOT3

MOT2

MOT1

mean

12

.2701

.3973

.2416

.0909

.1112

.4927

.3659

.0301

.2297

.2693

.2479

.2531

ecological features and environmental modifications on the school grounds

Layout1

4

.297

.361

.232

.110

.136

.465

.375

.024

.292

.249

.191

.269

L2

4

.297

.361

.232

.110

.136

.465

.375

.024

.292

.249

.191

.269

Design1

4

.303

.355

.242

.100

.112

.411

.419

.058

.180

.254

.203

.363

Surface1

4

.317

.354

.235

.094

.112

.457

.395

.036

.212

.264

.201

.324

S2

4

.303

.335

.242

.100

.112

.411

.419

.058

.180

.254

.203

.363

S3

4

.298

.377

.252

.075

.130

.480

.378

.012

.233

.233

.246

.289

Condition1

5

.256

.413

.248

.084

.121

.469

.372

.038

.287

.258

.203

.252

C2

4

.283

.394

.272

.051

.036

.492

.433

.040

.160

.258

.295

.287

NatExp1

5

.327

.335

.245

.093

.094

.426

.433

.046

.187

.267

.213

.333

NE2

3

.330

.336

.217

.117

.125

.401

.413

.061

.208

.274

.173

.345

NE3

4

.354

.316

.226

.104

.099

.423

.432

.046

.209

.285

.193

.312

NE4

3

.293

.407

.234

.066

.039

.411

.505

.045

.133

.2666

.270

.332

NatCons

1

.118

.569

.235

.078

.137

.451

.333

.078

.373

.235

.118

.275

Other

6

.269

.355

.281

.095

.067

.448

.443

.042

.251

.259

.222

.2699

general practices in conservation at the school

gp1

4

.283

.363

.239

.116

.136

.419

.400

.046

.260

.240

.192

.308

gp2

2

.292

.309

.260

.139

.059

.343

.508

.091

.210

.272

.166

.352

gp3

2

.181

.484

.262

.073

.080

.526

.344

.050

.364

.296

.159

.182

gp4

3

.197

.495

.236

.072

.138

.502

.333

.026

.328

.264

.206

.203

gp5

4

.276

.328

.261

.135

.094

.439

.414

.051

.233

.284

.241

.242

gp6

4

.299

.361

.250

.090

.110

.449

.406

.034

.134

.282

.309

.275

gp7

6

.312

.393

.231

.063

.104

.464

.396

.036

.195

.288

.227

.291

general student activity opportunities in conservation at school

sa1

7

.247

.386

.275

.092

.077

.448

.428

.048

.268

.256

.207

.270

sa2

7

.267

.354

.276

.103

.101

.479

.393

.027

.222

.263

.275

.240

sa3

6

.254

.418

.246

.082

.107

.506

.359

.028

.251

.238

.237

.273

sa4

7

.247

.386

.275

.092

.077

.448

.428

.047

.268

.256

.207

.270

sa6

4

.262

.358

.282

.098

.053

.431

.453

.063

.218

.274

.206

.302

sa7

5

.212

.409

.276

.103

.099

.410

.430

.062

.261

.223

.199

.317

general standing on conservation at the school

o1

6

.233

.409

.239

.120

.153

.482

.333

.033

.307

.251

.209

.234

o2

2

.276

.443

.242

.038

.092

.511

.372

.024

.146

.306

.271

.277

o3

4

.207

.391

.276

.126

.160

.490

.330

.020

.224

.221

.302

.253

o4

3

.217

.408

.278

.097

.086

.441

.417

.055

.277

.245

.199

.279

o5

2

.292

.309

.260

.139

.059

.343

.508

.091

.210

.272

.166

.352

italics indicates level 1 exceeds level 3, i.e., student numbers decrease

Comparison of Student Effects for the Extreme Groups "HIGH" and "LOW"

(in percent deviation from the mean)

School Activity Type

Conservation Knowledge

Environmental Motivation

little or no

clean up

every thing

active

0-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-100%

MOT4

MOT3

MOT2

MOT1

Mean

0.27

0.40

0.24

0.09

0.11

0.49

0.37

0.03

0.23

0.27

0.25

0.25

Features LOW

-0.01

0.05

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.04

-0.04

-0.01

-0.00

0.02

0.02

-0.03

HIGH

-0.00

-0.00

0.00

-0.00

-0.01

-0.05

0.04

0.02

0.01

-0.02

-0.05

0.05

GenPract LOW

0.00

0.02

-0.01

-0.01

-0.00

0.02

-0.01

-0.00

-0.05

-0.03

0.04

0.03

HIGH

-0.01

-0.01

0.01

0.01

-0.01

-0.04

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

-0.03

0.01

ActOpportLOW

0.03

-0.02

-0.03

0.02

0.06

0.04

-0.07

-0.03

-0.04

0.01

0.07

-0.04

HIGH

-0.02

-0.01

0.03

0.00

-0.03

-0.04

0.05

0.02

0.02

-0.02

-0.03

0.03

GenStandLOW

0.04

-0.01

-0.03

-0.01

0.02

0.03

-0.03

-0.01

-0.04

0.03

0.01

-0.00

HIGH

-0.03

-0.01

0.02

0.01

-0.00

-0.04

0.03

0.01

0.00

-0.01

-0.02

0.03

Effects of the aspects
physical design and school practices in conservation
on student activity, knowledge and motivation

physical design:

student environmental activity:

• Students increasingly do not feel that they participate primarily in "clean-up" activities as design improves;
• Students are more apt to "do a bit of everything" if design is moderate, less apt at the extremes;
• "Active" students are least found at schools where design is poorest and they increase in number as design improves. Then numbers level out for the schools with the strongest in design traits;
• Data for the least active students is too erratic to characterize and appear not to be affected by design traits alone;
• Where design is high but practices are low, student activity is lowest. Where both design and practices are high, student activity is best. Physical design which accommodates conservation concerns are associated with an increase in activity at school only conditionally.

student knowledge of conservation at their school:

• Students scoring less than 26% are at their lowest at schools with best design traits;
• Students scoring between 26 and 50% also decrease in number as design improves;
• Numbers of students scoring 50 - 75% are constant for schools with low and moderate design then they improve for the schools with better design traits;
• Students scoring above 75% are few, the data is sparse but suggest an improvement with improving design;
• At schools where design is high, knowledge is high. At schools where design is low, knowledge is low.

student environmental motivation:

• Students with the lowest motivation are greatest at schools with moderate design traits;
• Students with second lowest motivation do not appear to be affected by design traits alone;
• Students with the second highest motivation do not appear to be affected either;
• Students with the highest motivation appear to be positively affected by design traits;
• Design appears to affect highly motivated students most, the lowest motivated moderately so and the two intermediate groups least. Design traits appear to influence motivation, but its influence is selective.

school practices:

student environmental activity:

• The least active increase as traits on practices at school decrease;
• Students who feel that they participate primarily in "clean-up" activities do not appear to be influenced by traits on practices;
• Students are more apt to "do a bit of everything" as traits on practices improve;
• "Active" students appear to be indifferent to traits on practices;
• Practices in conservation influence students who would otherwise do nothing or very little or for those who try a bit of everything; other students appear to be unaffected. School practices affect student activity selectively.

student knowledge of conservation at their school:

• Students scoring less than 26% are at their lowest at schools with best traits on practices, otherwise these students paper to be little affected;
• Students scoring between 26 and 50% decrease in number as practices improve;
• Numbers of students scoring between 50 - 75% improve as practices improve;
• Students scoring above 75% are few, the data is sparse but suggest definite improvement with improving practices;
• At schools where practices are ecological, knowledge is better.

student environmental motivation:

• Students with the lowest motivation appear to increase as practices in conservation improve;
• Students with second lowest motivation do not appear to be affected by practices much, numbers drop only for schools with the best practices;
• Students with the second highest motivation do not appear to be affected;
• Students with the highest motivation show an improvement; The effect is steady but not dramatic;
• Practices influence student environmental motivation selectively. Highest and lowest motivated students are most affected and the two intermediate groups are least affected by conservation practices at school.

practices on student participation opportunities only:

student environmental activity:

• The least active appear indifferent to student participation opportunities, only for the best schools do the numbers decline a bit;
• Students who feel that they participate primarily in "clean-up" activities do not appear to be influenced either;
• Students, however, are more apt to "do a bit of everything" as student opportunities improve;
• "Active" students appear to be affected by extremes: where opportunities are highest and lowest is where the most active students have been found;
• Activity opportunities in conservation have limited influence on students; opportunities encourage students to try activities in general and perhaps provide the most active students with an outlet.

student knowledge of conservation at their school:

• Students scoring less than 26% are at their lowest at schools with best traits on student opportunities;
• Students scoring 26 and 50% decrease in number as opportunities improve, too;
• Numbers of students scoring between 50 - 75% improve as opportunities improve;
• Students scoring above 75% suggest a similar improvement with opportunity;
• At schools where opportunities are better, knowledge is better.

student environmental motivation:

• Students with the lowest motivation appear to increase as opportunities in conservation activity improve;
• Students with second lowest motivation do not appear to be affected by opportunities much;
• Students with the second highest motivation increase as opportunities decrease;
• Students with the highest, instead; increase as opportunities increase;
• Opportunities in conservation activity influence student environmental motivation selectively. Highest and lowest motivation are both affected positively; the second highest motivation group is influenced negatively.