Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Genre: Doctoral Dissertation
Description
For some time it has been recognized amongst researchers that individual and collective change should be the goal in educating for sustainability, unfortunately education has generally been ineffective in developing pro-environmental behaviors among students. Still, many scholars and practitioners are counting on education to lead us towards sustainability but suggest that in order to do so we must transition away from current information-intensive education methods. In order to develop and test novel sustainability education techniques, this research integrates pedagogical methods with psychological knowledge to target well-established sustainable behaviors. Through integrating education, behavior change, and sustainability research, I aim to answer: How can we motivate sustainable behavioral change through education programs? More specifically: How do diverse knowledge domains (declarative, procedural, effectiveness, and social) influence sustainable behaviors, both in general as well as before and after a sustainability education program? And: What are barriers hindering education approaches to changing behaviors? In answering these questions, this research involved three distinct stages: (1) Developing a theoretical framework for educating for sustainability and transformative change; (2) Implementing a food and waste focused sustainability educational program with K-12 students and teachers while intensively assessing participants' change over the course of one year; (3) Developing and implementing an extensive survey that examines the quantitative relationships between diverse domains of knowledge and behavior among a large sample of K-12 educators. The results from the education program demonstrated that significant changes in knowledge and behaviors were achieved but social knowledge in terms of food was more resistant to change as compared to that of waste. The survey results demonstrated that K-12 educators have high levels of declarative (factual or technical) knowledge regarding anthropocentric impacts on the environment; however, declarative knowledge does not predict their participation in sustainable behaviors. Rather, procedural and social knowledge significantly influence participation in sustainable food behaviors, where as procedural, effectiveness, and social knowledge impact participation in sustainable waste behaviors. Overall, the findings from this research imply that in order to effectively educate for sustainability, we must move away from nature-centric approaches that focus on declarative knowledge and embrace different domains of knowledge (procedural, effectiveness, and social) that emphasis the social implications of change.
ContributorsRedman, Erin (Author) / Larson, Kelli (Thesis advisor) / Eakin, Hallie (Committee member) / Spielmann, Katherine (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Many individual-level behavioral interventions improve health and well-being. However, most interventions exhibit considerable heterogeneity in response. Put differently, what might be effective on average might not be effective for specific individuals. From an individual’s perspective, many healthy behaviors exist that seem to have a positive impact. However, few existing tools support people in identifying interventions that work for them, personally.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
ContributorsPhatak, Sayali Shekhar (Author) / Buman, Matthew P (Thesis advisor) / Hekler, Eric B. (Committee member) / Huberty, Jennifer L (Committee member) / Johnston, Erik W., 1977- (Committee member) / Swan, Pamela D (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
The consumption of food, energy, and water (FEW) resources in U.S. households is very carbon-intensive. However, these negative climate change impacts are often invisible due to insufficient awareness and knowledge. Serious games (SGs) can potentially address this issue through an experiential and rigorous approach to simulate household actions and impacts in a playful but realistic setting. This dissertation focuses on: (a) the design and testing of an SG called HomeRUN (Role-play for Understanding Nexus); (b) the effectiveness of gameplay in advancing player knowledge about the upfront costs, financial returns, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of various household decisions; and (c) the effectiveness of intervention messages in increasing FEW conservation to reduce household GHG emissions. The results of gameplay sessions played by 150 university students show that HomeRUN is fun to play, creates a flow experience, and results in experiential learning. The majority of players agreed that the game experience will continue over time to influence their future consumption behaviors to conserve FEW resources. Female players tended to gain more knowledge about financial aspects of interventions, whereas male players were more likely to increase their understandings of GHG emissions and resource consumption after playing HomeRUN. Social comparison intervention messages about energy and food consumption led to the highest reductions in household carbon emissions. The messages associated with each FEW resource tended to be most likely to lead to FEW conservation actions with the game that most closely corresponded to the particular FEW resource addressed in the message. This dissertation advances understandings about the design and use of SGs to foster learning and promote sustainable household FEW consumption.
ContributorsHanif, Muhammad Adnan (Author) / Agusdinata, Datu Buyung (Thesis advisor) / Halvorsen, Kathleen (Committee member) / Janssen, Marco (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021