Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy literacy: Evaluating knowledge, affect, and behavior of students

in Taiwan
Lung-Sheng Lee a,1, Yi-Fang Lee a,n, James W. Altschuld b, Ying-Ju Pan c,2
a

National Taiwan Normal University, 162 HePing East Road Section 1, Taipei 10610, Taiwan
The Ohio State University, 3253 Newgate Court, Dublin, OH 43017, USA
c
National Chi Nan University, 1 DaiXui Road, Puli, Nantao 545, Taiwan
b

ar t ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 9 July 2014
Received in revised form
8 November 2014
Accepted 11 November 2014
Available online 27 November 2014

Energy literacy that can empower people to make thoughtful decisions and take responsible actions is
more important as energy shortages have become pressing issues in the world. Energy literacy was
measured among a sample of 2400 secondary students involved in a national energy education program
in Taiwan. Response patterns related to student background and factors determining energy consumption behaviors were also studied. Energy literacy was high and positive, with greater impact as expected
by grade (senior high school students outscored junior high school ones) and there were some effects
due to gender and socioeconomic status. Students' performance on energy knowledge was
acceptable (over 60% correct across grades) while a notable discrepancy between affect and behavior was
identied indicating that there might not be a correspondence between what people say they would do
and what they actually do. Energy saving behavior was more closely associated with the affect than other
variables. Reasons for the ndings and implications for energy education in the future are discussed.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Energy education
Energy literacy
Energy program performance

1. Introduction
Energy is a pressing issue in the world as growing consumption
leads to not only greenhouse gas emissions that radically damage
our climate but also to energy shortages. The production and use
of energy represent a challenge requiring awareness and behavioral adaptions at every level of society. Energy literacy that can
empower people to make thoughtful decisions and act responsibly
is ever more important (DeWaters and Powers, 2007).
Energy literacy (knowledge, affect, behavior) is a learned entity
thus warranting programs and studies of their effectiveness in
grades K-12 (Newborough and Probert, 1994; Stern, 1992; Zografakis et al., 2008). Recent research (DeWaters and Powers,
2011) found that US secondary students' awareness of energy issues was discouragingly low and similar to that of 20 years ago
(Barrowa and Morrisey, 1989; Gambro and Switzky, 1999). People
tended to self-report that they knew quite a bit about energy;
however their performance on related tests did not support their
statements about what they knew (Murphy and Olson, 2008). It
was also noted that energy consumption behaviors strongly
n

Corresponding author. Fax: 886 2 2392 9449.

E-mail addresses: lslee@ntnu.edu.tw (L.-S. Lee), ivana@ntnu.edu.tw (Y.-F. Lee),
altschuld.1@osu.edu (J.W. Altschuld), lulu1017@ntnu.edu.tw (Y.-J. Pan).
1
Fax: 886 2 2392 1015.
2
Fax: 886 2 2362 1453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.012
0301-4215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

correlate to affect, but were much lower in regard to awareness.

These ndings highlight the need to improve literacy and knowledge of relevant events (DeWaters and Powers, 2008, 2011).
Other important variables are costs for countries that rely on
large amounts of imported energy (Taiwan as an example obtains
98% of supply overseas mostly as fossil fuels). In such instances
education must deal with conservation by guiding individuals to
use more efcient appliances, make appropriate choices, save
energy in daily life, etc. In Taiwan a key indicator of what has been
taking place is intensity (energy required per unit output) which
has decreased by 1.9% annually since 2001 (Hu, 2011), but compared to developed countries there is still room for improvement.
To close the gap and strive for energy independence, Taiwan
proposed an energy policy with education as its centerpiece
(Taiwan Bureau of Energy, 2009). Numerous projects have been
conducted to increase students' energy literacy. A latest and nationwide one is the Nurturing Talent for Energy Technology
(NTET) program in place from 2010 to early 2014. Two levels of
energy education (Newborough et al., 1991) were emphasized
developing energy professionals in higher education and producing a more energy-literate population via primary and secondary
education. This effort presented a unique opportunity to study
whether it achieved its goal, especially for junior and senior high
schools.
To date the importance of energy education is underscored in
Taiwan, and yet there is limited documentation of where

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

secondary students start in the learning process and what they

gain from it (Lee, 2011). One reason is the lack of valid instruments
to measure energy literacy and the difculty of accessing a nationwide sample with the result that understanding about literacy
and its linkage to behavior has not been well established. Succinctly, the evaluation of energy education programs has been less
than stellar.
Therefore, we examined energy-related knowledge, affect, and
behavior for a national sample of secondary students participating
in NTET. Data were collected by an instrument modied from
DeWaters and Powers' work to measure energy literacy. It was
tailored to t different grades (junior and senior high school) and
to determine where secondary students were at the beginning of
an educational program, their progress, and utilization of information obtained for improving future offerings. It also permitted the examination of the associations between key variables
particularly as tied to student actions or potential energy related
actions. Key questions were:

 What is the performance of students on an energy literacy

survey in the domains of knowledge, affect, and behavior?

 Are there patterns related to student grade, gender, and family

socioeconomic status?

 What are the correlations between affect, behavior, and

knowledge?

 Are the variables predictive of students' energy conservation

behaviors?

1.1. Literature review

Energy is the underlying currency that is necessary for everything humans do in their work and lives and how their behaviors
affect the natural environment that supports them (Wisconsin
K-12 Energy Education Program, 2013). It is an interdisciplinary
topic, ranging from scientic concepts and environmental issues at
the local level to events across the globe (DeWaters and Powers,
2013). In this regard, the United States Global Change Research
Program (2012) described energy literacy as a part of social and
natural science literacy in which related issues could not be understood by using only a science or technology approach. It requires a comprehensive consideration of civics, history, economics,
sociology, psychology, and politics along with science, math, and
engineering. The concept covers a broad range of elds and it is
necessary to depict it from varied dimensions.
Ideas of science, technology, and environment literacy, input
derived from literature, education standards and curriculum materials formed the basis of DeWaters and Powers' (2013) denition
of energy literacy as a broad term encompassing content
knowledge as well as a citizenship understanding of energy that
includes affective and behavioral aspects (p. 38). A literate person
understands how energy is used daily, the impacts of its production and consumption on the environment and society, the inuences of energy-related decisions and actions on the global community, the need for conservation and developing alternative
sources, and other factors that contribute to decision making and
action. Similarly, the US Department of Energy saw the term as an
understanding of the nature and role of energy in the universe and
in our lives.also the ability to apply this understanding to answer questions and solve problems (United States Global Change
Research Program, 2012). A similar perspective was found in the
North American Association for Environmental Education's (2011)
description of environmental literacy the knowledge, abilities,
dispositions, and behaviors of students that enable students to
make decisions and act to address environmental issues (pp.15
16). These viewpoints collectively point toward the fact that

99

knowledge, affect, and behavior are critical dimensions of energy

literacy.
Surveys designed to assess the domains are often used in energy education programs (Energy Center of Wisconsin, 1999;
National Energy Education Development Project, 2013; National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation, 2002). The
Wisconsin K-12 Energy Education Program (KEEP) study is illustrative of how they are measured (Energy Center of Wisconsin,
1999). KEEP published a curriculum focused on the knowledge and
skills necessary to help future consumers make informed choices
about energy use. Its baseline assessment measured students' and
parents' knowledge, attitudes, and practices about energy consumption. Surveys had common items for attitudes and behaviors
in versions that took into account differences between 4th6th
and 7th12th graders. Another notable case is the National Energy
Education Development (NEED) project. It aims at promoting an
energy conscious and educated society by establishing networks to
design and deliver energy education programs. Evaluation is a high
priority for all of NEED's programming areas to obtain feedback for
improvement in the curriculum, materials, activities, and student
performance. An exemplary measurement strategy is the online
Pre/Post Energy Poll that enables educators a tool to assess students' knowledge prior and after programs. It has questions for
four grade levels: primary, elementary, intermediate and secondary focusing on science of energy, forms of energy, sources of
energy, electricity, transportation, and conservation and efciency.
Under each topic, knowledge, comprehension, and application
items are included. Obviously, no matter whether it is NEED or
KEEP, the evaluation instrument is a critical component of the
project. However, it was mainly limited to the knowledge domain,
with little attention to affect or behavior (as in the NEED survey),
or somewhat narrowly focused on specic predetermined curriculum-based objectives, and perhaps not representative of a
comprehensive approach to energy literacy.
What would constitute a more appropriate survey? Chen,
Huang, and Liu (2013) tried to look at that concern by developing a
framework to serve as a guideline for survey design, specically
for the Taiwan context. Nine indicators in four dimensions were
generated from a literature review and evaluated by a panel of
local experts to ensure relevance for students. They prioritized the
dimensions and indicators by a process which used pairwise
comparisons. A panel of 63 key members in the NTET program
participated. The results showed that the dimensions were sorted
by priority as follows: civil responsibility for a sustainable society, low-carbon lifestyle, energy concepts, and reasoning
on energy issues. As for the indicators, awareness and self-efcacy and identifying carbon-less technology and action plans
were the top two and possessing a systematic understanding
about energy was the lowest. This work represents an initial examination of the energy education framework and more validation
is needed.
Likewise, DeWaters and Powers (2011, 2013) worked on the
question by means of a content framework to organize the approach to data collection. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains were the foundation for in depth exploration of what it
means to be energy literate. There were general characteristics
aligned with the domains with each characteristic consisting of
specic concepts. The framework was reviewed by a panel of energy and energy-education specialists with 33 items in 8 general
characteristics produced for knowledge, 11 for 3 affective characteristics, and 8 for 5 behavioral ones. Table 1 contains the set of
characteristics and examples of benchmarks. These components
became the foundation for the Instrument Development Framework with the criteria placed into a content outline. This construct
was employed in succeeding studies (Chen et al., 2013; DeWaters

100

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

Table 1
The characteristics and examples of benchmarks of the instrument development framework (DeWaters and Powers, 2013).
Domain

General characteristics

Examples of benchmarks

Cognition 1. Knowledge of basic scientic facts

2. Knowledge of issues related to energy sources and resources
3. Awareness of the importance of energy use for individual and societal functioning
4. Knowledge of general trends in US and global energy resource supply and use
5. Understanding of the impact energy resource development and use can have on society
6. Understanding of the impact energy resource development/use can have on the
environment
7. Knowledge of the impact individual and societal decisions related to energy resource
development and use
8. Congitive skills

Denition/forms of energy
Renewable and nonrenewable resources
Society's need for energy
Relative abundance of energy resources in the US/globally
Societal impacts related to energy resource development
Impact of developing energy on all spheres of the
environment
Importance of energy saving and improved efciency of energy use
Ability to examine one's own beliefs and values

Affect

1. Concern with respect to global energy issue

2. Positive attitudes and values
3. Stron efcacy beliefs

Values energy education

Prevention of societal problems related to energy use
Internal locus of control

Behavior

Predispositions to behave
1. Willingness to work toward energy saving
2. Thoughtful, effective decision-making
3. Change advocacy
Behavior
1. Willingness to work toward energy saving
2. Change advocacy

Considers energy impacts of everyday decisions

Evaluates pros and cons related to energy consumption
Remains open to new ideas
Exhibits energy saving habits at home and in school
Encourages others to make wise energy-related actions

and Powers, 2011; Lee and Lee, 2013) and was critical to the instrument development procedure of the current study.
Energy literacy education should focus on what students learn
in the classroom and their actions and behaviors in daily life, although the relationships between the variables are not fully clear
(Jensen, 2002). In some cases, individuals with higher energy/environment knowledge had more positive attitudes and were
proactive toward energy conservation (Energy Center of Wisconsin, 1999; Murphy, 2002; Murphy and Olson, 2008), but in others
more complex associations were observed (Bamberg and Mser,
2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Rajecki (1982) proposed that
the discrepancy between attitude and behavior might come from
indirect experience, normative inuences, temporal gaps, and attitude-behavior measurement. For instance, an indirect experience
(learning energy impact on environment in school) as opposed to
a direct one (seeing carbon emission from the vehicles on the
street) will lead to a weaker correlation between the two variables.
Also affecting relationships and differences in results is the fact
that attitudes are often much broader in scope (Do you care about
the environment?) than measured actions (Do you recycle?). Such
discrepancies may point to possible aws in research methodology
and illustrate the difculty in designing valid instruments.
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) noted that with education,
knowledge is more extensive, but that does not automatically
imply increased pro-environmental (energy-related) attitudes or
behaviors. After reviewing models to explain such interactions,
they proposed a structure where environmental knowledge, values, attitudes, and emotional involvement constituted a proenvironmental consciousness that was embedded in broader
personal values. It was shaped by personality and internal factors
(motivation, locus of control) and external factors (social and
cultural, infrastructure, the political context, economic situations)
and pointed toward a nonlinear relationship when cultural and
practical concerns were taken into consideration. Such viewpoints
were incorporated into the current study.

education at the primary, secondary and tertiary education levels,

and enhancing the knowledge of energy-saving and carbon-reduction for all citizens.
Not only does this project deal with education, it also has broad
implications on the overall energy policy picture in the country.
Our premise is that citizens who are better informed and empowered to act are more likely to successfully carry out government decisions about energy resources. This is part of the bedrock
of what Taiwan must do to ensure its energy future.
One master project ofce and two sub-project ofces (for
grades K-12 and the college level) were funded to work with
promotion centers for grades K-12, which were regional/county/
city-based and afliated with schools as well as university/college
based resource centers (NTET, 2013). The rst two authors were
the project leader and co-leader respectively of the ofce for
grades K-12 with the responsibility to monitor promotion centers'
performance and to identify required knowledge, skills and affect
for students. This study was designed to capture the latter with
emphasis on secondary students.
Five regional promotion centers were located at senior high
schools (for grades 1012) and 15 at elementary/junior high
schools (for K-9) around the country. They recruited seed teachers
for grades K-12 and volunteers and narrators for promotion centers, disseminated/promoted basic energy education to students
and communities within their regions/counties/cities, and established websites for energy technology education. A school was
designated as a center to collaborate with 68 schools in its area,
i.e., a partnership to disseminate energy education. In total, 300
K-12 schools participated, 148 of them were combined junior and
senior high schools. The evaluation examined effectiveness in
student learning, affect, and behavior as measured by a closedended survey.

1.2. Study context

2.1. Survey instrument

This was an exploratory investigation to describe the energy

literacy of secondary students in Taiwan. The context is the NTET
which was a nationwide project initiated by the Ministry of Education between 20102013 with goals of promoting energy

To design the instrument a team of 6 master science and

technology teachers (3 from junior and 3 from senior high schools,
JHS and SHS) and 3 experts in energy, energy education, and
measurement was convened. They reviewed energy literacy

2. Methodology

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

frameworks, literature sources, curriculum standards, and questionnaires. Then they developed a pool of items, conducted a pilot
test, examined reliability and validity, and prepared a revised
instrument.
DeWaters and Powers' framework and their Energy Literacy
Questionnaire for secondary students in New York was critical and
modied to t Taiwan (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; DeWaters
et al., 2013). The original questions were looked at in detail by the
team to see if they were suitable for the context, with items being
deleted or revised, and new ones written. Approximately 63% of
the items were retained or modied from DeWaters and Powers'
instrument (Table 2). Most item modications were straightforward (language) or a minor alteration to better t Taiwan with an
example being Which of the following sources provides most of
the electricity in the United States? revised to ask for the answer
in Taiwan. As for new items, they were in regard to knowledge
covered in education standards and curriculum materials or affect/
behavior that were highly encouraged in schools, e.g. What is the
main goal of the Kyoto Protocol? or I unplug electronic devices
when not in use. The nal form contained sections for student
background (gender, parents' highest educational level, household
income, school location) and for energy-related knowledge, affect,
and behavior.
Considering differences between JHS and SHS, separate
knowledge versions attentive to level were generated similar to
the approach taken by DeWaters and Powers. Both versions covered the same subscales: energy concepts, sources and resources,
energy development and usage, and impact on the environment/
society. Item difculty was controlled by generating easy, middle,
and high difculty items. A pilot study was administered to 400
students from each level and some items based on discrimination
were deleted, resulting in scales of 52 items for SHS and 48 for JHS.
Four parallel knowledge tests of 20 items each were created for
JHS and SHS to reduce respondent burden and increase return rate.
They were composed of linking items (n 12) that were common
to all forms with the rest unique to each version. All questions
were selected on difculty and coverage of topic areas (Rogers,
2010) and the 4 tests were equivalent as supported by Rasch
measurement via Winsteps.
For the affective and behavioral domains the same 5-point
Likert scale was used for SHS and JHS students. There were 14
affective items in two subscales of concern with global energy
issues and positive attitudes and values, and 12 behavioral ones
in act toward energy conservation and change advocacy.
Higher affective and behavioral scores denote more positive values
toward energy-related issues and conservation or signify that a
person is demonstrating actions to save energy and encourage
others to change consumption patterns, respectively. The subscales of each domain and corresponding denitions are in Table 3.

Table 2
Number of items retained, modied, removed, or added from the DeWaters and
Powers' survey to the current study.
Domain

DeWaters and Current Survey

Powers' survey
Retention Modication Removal Addition Total

Knowledge
(MSa/HSb)
Affective
Behavioral
Total (MS/HS)

30/38

6/7

4/4

20/27

10/9

20/20

17
10
57/65

6
4
16/17

5
4
13/13

6
2
28/35

3
4
17/16

14
12
46/46

101

The pilot test produced reasonable Cronbach's alphas for the

three domains and overall items (.72 to .98 for JHS; .78 to. 93 for
SHS). Content validity was addressed in the development process
with unclear items rewritten or removed.
2.2. Subjects
Two groups participated. One consisted of 9th graders from
junior high schools in promotion centers and their partner schools.
Since the schools were across the country, they were sorted into
regions (east, south, west, and north) and subsamples (8 schools)
taken. Parallel forms were randomly administered to 160 students
at each school for a total of 1280 JHS students excluding those in
pilot test. For the 12th graders, sampling was similar noting that
there are two types of schools in Taiwan: college-bound general
high schools and career-oriented vocational high schools. Each has
about the same number of students; thus, one school was selected
per type in every part of the country. Approximately 120160
students per school were involved, leading to a total of 1120. They
had participated in the NTET project for two years when the survey was administered.
2.3. Data collection and analysis strategy
The instrument was in paper-and-pencil format for classroom
administration. Project leaders (principals, directors of teaching
affairs) at target schools were in charge of data collection such as
arranging survey delivery via standardized procedures. Parallel
forms were randomly distributed to subjects at the same time; the
procedure worked well with return rates of 96.88% for JHS and
96.70% for SHS.
Students recorded their responses on computer-scored answer
sheets that were subsequently scanned into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet. The multiple choice knowledge questions were
transformed to dichotomous data, 0 representing a wrong answer
and 1 for the right one which were summed and converted to
percent correct. SPSS 19.0 version was used to facilitate data
analysis. ANOVA was conducted to see if the knowledge responses
were similar across forms and differences were insignicant. The
data from the 4 versions were collapsed for analysis. The results
supported the use of parallel forms and random assignment to the
sample.
Descriptive statistics were calculated for the domains and statistical analyses were done for grade, gender, and family socioeconomic status (SES) via nonparametric statistical analyses since
the data were not normally distributed. SES was created from two
variables: parents' highest educational degree and family economic status leading to a 5-level scale. The higher scores indicated
the students came from higher status. Relationships between
knowledge, affect, and behavior were determined by Spearman
correlation. A multiple regression was conducted for the fourth
question to ascertain whether energy consumption actions could
be predicted.

3. Results
3.1. Subject characteristics

a
MS was the version for middle school students in DeWaters and Powers'
survey and for junior high school ones in current study.
b
HS was the version for high school students in DeWaters and Powers' survey
and for senior high school students in current study.

Just over 51% of the JHS respondents were male and 45.1% from
middle class families (family income). Parents' highest educational
level as determined by the mode/median was at high school,
consistent with nationwide data (Yeh et al., 2013). Slightly above
40% of the students were in urban schools and the percentage of
students from promotion center schools was close to those from
partner schools (48.6% vs. 51.4%). Most students (60.5%) indicated

102

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

Table 3
Domains, subscales, and denitions of energy literacy.
Domain

Subscale

Denition

Cognition

1. Basic scientic energy concepts

Understand the denition of energy, units of energy and power, and energy transformation
2. Energy sources and resources
Identify primary energy source, renewable/nonrenewable energy resources
3. Energy development and usage
Awareness of the use of energy in societies and households
4. Energy impact on the environment/society Understand the impact of energy resource development and use can have on the environment and society

Affect

1. Concerns about global energy issues

2. Positive attitudes and values

Acknowledge seriousness of energy problem and interest in current energy-related events

Potential for adapting lifestyles to alleviate energy problems

Behavior

1. Act toward energy conservation

2. Change advocacy

Exhibit energy-saving habits in daily life

Encourage others to make wise energy-related decisions and actions

Note: Adapted from DeWaters and Powers (2013).

that they learned about energy from school, a result analogous to

what DeWaters and Powers (2011) reported, underscoring the
importance of energy education programs provided by schools.
For the SHS survey, 49.1% of the students were from general
high schools with the rest from vocational high schools. A little
more than half (53.5%) were male. The majority of schools were
urban (78.6%) and partner schools (64.6%). Like the JHS results,
57.3% of the students learned about energy at school. Their family
backgrounds (parents' education and SES) were parallel to the JHS
and national numbers.

Table 4
Knowledge, affective, and behavioral performance for JHS and SHS students.

Mean
SD
Reliabilityc
N
a
b

3.2. Student performance on energy literacy survey

A summary of knowledge, affective, and behavioral ratings for
junior and senior high school students is in Table 4. The average
percent correct for the JHS group on the knowledge questions was
61.04. Affect toward energy saving tended to be positive (M 4.02)
and higher than for behavior (M 3.42). The patterns for SHS were
similar for the three domains, 63.83%, 4.04%, and 3.51% and
slightly better than JHS students, especially in the knowledge and
behavior (p o.01 on MannWhitney U-test). This is most apparent
and expected in cognition where 53.55% of the SHS students were
above 70% correct with only 40.73% in JHS demonstrating that
level of achievement. For the affective and behavioral domains, the
mean score on the affective subscale was signicantly higher than
the mean behavioral score for JHS (Wilcoxon Z  23.03, p o.001)
and SHS (Wilcoxon Z  19.70, p o.001) with effect sizes
(r  .46/  .42) close to large level (|.5|) suggested by Cohen
(1988). The reliability of the instruments was acceptable ranging
from .77 to .93.
3.2.1. Energy-related knowledge
Scores on the four knowledge subscales were signicantly
different no matter the grade. Friedman ANOVA results showed
2(3)261.26 for JHS, 2(3) 288.07 for SHS and both 2 values
reached p o.001 level. Knowledge about the impact of energy
resource development and use on the environment and society
was the best, 70.12% correct for JHS and 71.59% for SHS (Table 5)
and signicantly higher than each of the other 3 subscales (pairwise comparisons via post hoc analysis). A majority of JHS students (86.2%) recognized that developing renewable energy resources is a better way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as
compared to using more nuclear power, extracting more crude oil,
or building a modern oil renery. Most SHS students (77%) identied that renewable energy is a strategy to protect the earth.
The subscale basic scientic energy concepts was also high
for both groups (61.11% for JHS and 63.47% for SHS) and signicant
when compared to Energy sources/resources for JHS and Energy
development and usage for SHS in post hoc tests (Table 5). Ninety
three percent of JHS students knew that energy was the capacity

Knowledgea

Affectiveb

Behavioralb

JHS

SHS

JHS

SHS

JHS

SHS

61.04
19.70
.77
1240

63.83
19.62
.77
1083

4.02
.76
.91
1240

4.04
.76
.93
1080

3.42
.81
.90
1228

3.51
.75
.90
1068

Knowledge scores were converted to percent correct.

Affetive and behavioral items were measured by 5-point Likert scales.
Cronbach's alpha () internal reliability coefcient.

or ability to perform work or a force that moves something. More

than 67% of SHS students recognized that the amount of electricity
used was measured in Kilowatt-hours (kWh). As for the remaining
subscales, JHS students demonstrated more knowledge on items
concerning energy development and usage then energy sources/resources, whereas the reverse was true for the SHS group
(see post hoc results in Table 5). Some of the pairwise results were
quite small with low effect size (r o.1), e.g. (1) versus (3) in JHS
and (1) versus (2) in SHS (Table 5).
Although the students performed well in knowledge items
generally, they failed to demonstrate knowledge on several energy
issues. For example, SHS students had difculty identifying gasoline as a secondary energy source (36% correct) and few students
(31%) recognized that the change in high and low tides can be
harnessed into electrical energy. Only 17% JHS could identify
Table 5
Comparison of student performance on knowledge subscales by group.
Knowledge subscale

(1) Basic scientic energy

concepts
(2) Energy sources/resources
(3) Energy development and
usage
(4) Energy impact on the environment/society
nnn

JHS

SHS

M (%) 2a/post hoc

resultb

M (%) 2/post hoc

result

61.11

261.26nnn

63.47

288.07nnn

56.41
59.73

(4)4 (1)4(2)c
(4)4 (3)4(2)

63.01
55.69

(4) 4(2) 4(3)

(4) 4(1) 4(3)

70.12

71.59

po .001.
The value was an index of the difference among subscales calculated with
Friedman test.
b
Post hoc result was calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
c
(1) Basic scientic energy concepts, (2) Energy sources/resources, (3)
Energy development and usage, and (4) Energy impact on the environment/
society.
a

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

nuclear power as the most cost-effective way to produce in terms

of actual year expenditures as opposed to wind, solar, and hydroelectric power in Taiwan, and less than 37% knew biogas was
one of the biomass energy sources.
3.2.2. Energy-related affect and behavior
Responses to the affective and behavioral items are in Table 6.
For the subscales of affect, the means were consistently around
4 indicating that students generally acknowledged the seriousness
of energy problems and were willing to change lifestyles to resolve
them. There was some variability in the response of JHS students
to the affective subscales, with the concern of global energy issues (M4.05) being signicantly higher than positive attitude
and values (M 4.00) (Z  4.40, p o.001) but the effect
(r  .08) was small.
For behavior, the ratings were lower than those for affect, but
still positive, with means from 3.29 to 3.60 across subscales and
groups. JHS students exhibited energy-saving habits in daily life
more than encouraging others to make wise energy-related decisions (po .001) with a similar pattern in SHS. The effect sizes
(r  .28 for SHS and  .20 for JHS) were close to medium (|.3|)
level (Cohen, 1988). Better than 70% of the students (71% JHS and
77% SHS) reported that they often or always turned off the lights
when they left a room. On the other hand, only one-fth (23% JHS
and 28% SHS) were willing to encourage their family to take easily
accessed public transportation instead of riding in a car.
3.3. Response patterns by student gender and family SES
Gender differences for the 3 domains by group are in Table 7.
Interestingly females in SHS performed better than males in all
domains whereas JHS males were somewhat superior. The gender
effect was signicant in a few instances with JHS males having
greater energy-related knowledge than females (MannWhitney
U173342, p o.01). More than 43% of JHS males realized that
burning coal provided most of the electricity in Taiwan, while only
28% females knew the answer (p o.001). Females had more difculty than males estimating how much electricity (kWh) would
be consumed when running a computer with 400 W (rated power)
for 5 hours (33% correct for males and 23% for females, po .001).
The data also show that SHS females were more positive in
attitudes and values toward energy issues than their male counterparts (MannWhitney U143483, p o.05). The SHS females
more strongly agreed to the statement that they would do more to
save energy as compared to males, with nine out of fourteen items
reaching the level of signicance at .05. Along those lines: SHS
females felt more strongly that Taiwanese should conserve more
energy than males (po .01), we should make more of our electricity from renewable resources (po .05), and I would do more
to save energy if I knew how (p o.05).
Table 6
Comparison of student performance on affective and behavioral subscales by group.
Subscale

JHS
M

SHS
Z

Affective
(1) Concern of global energy issues
(2) Positive attitudes and values

4.05
4.00

 4.40nnn

4.03
4.05

Behavioral
(1) Act toward energy conservation
(2) Change advocacy

3.55
3.29

 13.86nnn

3.60
3.43

nnn

 1.37

 10.13nnn

p o .001
The value was an index of difference between subscales in affective or behavioral domain calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
a

103

Table 7
Results of gender difference for knowledge, affective, and behavioral subscales by
group.
Domain

Group

Gender

Mean

SD

Mean rank

MannWhitney U

Knowledge

JHS

Male
Female
Male
Female

62.48%
59.98%
63.22%
65.06%

20.45
18.45
20.32
18.19

642
589
529
546

173342nn

Male
Female
Male
Female

3.99
4.04
4.00
4.11

.88
.71
.87
.75

619
614
520
564

Male
Female
Male
Female

3.46
3.38
3.51
3.53

.88
.72
.81
.67

630
591
518
543

SHS

Affective

JHS
SHS

Behavioral

JHS
SHS

138861

187840
143483n

174219
132660

p o .05.
po .01.

nn

The SES variable was measured by combining the ratings from

parents' highest educational degree and from family economic
status leading to a 5-level scale. Table 8 contains the comparative
results of family SES difference for knowledge, affective, and behavioral subscales by group. An SES effect was seen in knowledge
questions for both groups (Welch F(4, 331.41) 12.91 for JHS and
Welch F(4, 213.29) 10.27 for SHS, p o.001). Post hoc analysis indicated differences between the highest SES (level 5) and levels 3,
2, and 1; also for the difference between level 4 and level 1. Students in the higher family SES tended to be more knowledgeable
about energy-related issues than those in the lower ones. The gap
between the lowest two levels was especially notable in that
students in the lowest SES level might have decient energy-related knowledge. For affect and behavior, SES disparities were not
signicant.

3.4. The relationship between knowledge, affective, and behavioral

Domains
In Table 9 the correlation coefcients between the knowledge,
affective, and behavioral domains are given. Although all were
positive and signicant (p o.01), magnitudes varied with that
between affect and behavior being greater than the other two. The
relationship patterns were identical across grades.

3.5. Predicting energy consumption behavior

The last question dealt with whether energy-related knowledge, affect, gender, and SES predict energy conservation behaviors. Multiple regression analysis was conducted by the ENTER
procedure in SPSS. The bivariate correlations between predictors
and criterion variable are in Table 10. Three predictors (affect,
knowledge, and gender) signicantly correlated with behaviors
with the range of coefcients from  .07 to.49; for the most part
multi-collinearity did not seem to be a problem.
All predictors were entered simultaneously to predict energy
consumption behaviors (Table 11). They explained 24.2% of the
variance for JHS (R2 .242, F(4, 1213) 96.59, p o.001) and 21.3% for
SHS (R2 .213, F(4, 1053) 71.25, p o.001). Energy-related affect
signicantly predicted conservation behavior ( .49, p o.001)
and was much more prominent than the other variables.

104

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

Table 8
Comparative results of family SES difference for knowledge, affective, and behavioral subscales by group.
Fa

Mean

Table 11
Summary of multiple regression analysis on energy conservation behavior with
four predictors.

Post hoc
result

JHS

SES(1)b SES(2) SES(3) SES(4) SES(5)

Knowledge
JHS
51.97

SHS

54.58

57.35

59.41

61.99

66.74

61.23

60.00

65.26

68.96

12.91nnn SES(5) 4
(3),(2),
(1) SES(4)
4(1)
10.27nnn SES(5) 4
(3),(2),
(1) SES(4)
4(3),(1)

Affective
JHS
SHS

4.00
3.66

4.06
3.99

4.00
4.05

3.98
4.06

4.09
4.08

.91
2.04

Behavioral
JHS
SHS

3.42
3.60

3.45
3.53

3.36
3.50

3.49
3.51

3.43
3.51

1.25
.15

nnn

p o.001.
The value was calculated with the Welch test.
b
SES(1) was the group of the lowest family SES, and SES(2), (3), (4) and
(5) were in ascending order.
a

Table 9
Spearman's rho coefcients between knowledge, affective, and behavioral aspects.
Intercorrelation

JHS

SHS

Knowledge vs. Affective

Knowledge vs. Behavioral
Affective vs. Behavioral

.25nn
.12nn
.52nn

.24nn
.10nn
.47nn

nn

p o.01.

4. Discussion
This study generated interesting ndings about knowledge,
affect, and behavior in regard to energy issues. Energy literacy
levels among secondary students in Taiwan were high and positive. The pattern was not consistent with studies in the US (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Gambro and Switzky, 1999; National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation, 2002). One
possible explanation is the energy independence of the country.
Due to insufcient resources, people in Taiwan may be more attuned to shortages and encouraged to conserve and reduce carbon
in everyday life for environmental sustainability. The US is more
energy independent, with over 70% self-sufciency (Yergin, 2008)
and students might not strongly sense the issue resulting in poorer
understanding and awareness. Another reason might be sampling
Table 10
Correlation matrix among criterion variable and four predicted variables.
Y
Energy conservation behavior
(Y)
Energy-related knowledge (X1)
Energy related attitude (X2)
Gender (X3)
Family SES (X4)

X1

1.00
nnn

.12
.49nnn
 .05n
.02

.11nnn

X2

X3

.46nnn
nnn

1.00
.33
.25nnn 1.00
 .07nn
.03
.19nnn
.03

.02
.05
.07n
1.00
 .01

X4
 .02
.18nnn
.07n
.12nnn
1.00

Note: The characters having bold were the correlation coefcients for SHS students
and those in italics were for JHS ones.
n

po .05.
p o.01.
nnn
p o.001.
nn

Energy-related knowledge
Energy-related affect
Gender
Family SES
nn

SHS

t value

t value

 .01
.49
 .07
.01

 .47
19.03nnn
 2.63nn
.32

 .04
.47
 .01
 .04

 1.45
16.37nnn
 .21
 1.47

p o .01.
po .001.

nnn

as the subjects were from the schools participating in an energy

education program and have more exposure to energy-related issues. Evidence of this is also there from the impact of age on the
knowledge domain being signicant, similar to earlier research
endeavors (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Gambro and Switzky,
1999). Respondents noted that schools were their major source of
information about energy which supports education as an intervention to improve energy-related knowledge. A national energy
education project (like NTET) with denite goals and supportive
resources appears to be effective in disseminating energy policy
and conservation.
Among the domains, performance on cognition was noticeable.
The majority of students have correct understanding and awareness of energy issues, particularly on the items regarding the impact of energy resource development and use on the environment
and society. To some extent, the results might be attributable to
the erce debate on the construction of a nuclear power plant in
Taiwan. The issue has attracted nationwide attention even more so
since the destructive nuclear accidents in Japan in 2011. Similar to
Japan, Taiwan is in the circum-Pacic seismic zone with the unpredictable threat of earthquakes. The Fukushima nuclear disaster
triggered by earthquake and tsunami forced Taiwanese citizens to
face the pros and cons of using nuclear power, to explore the
development of renewable energy in the global context, and to
understand the potential damages caused by different types of
energy on the environment. Consequently, it is not surprising to
see students equipped with more knowledge on this aspect of
what is happening and also reects well on the high ratings observed on concern of global energy issues in the affective domain. Conversely, the slightly lower scores on Energy development and usage indicate areas for improvement. Some teaching
activities linking to students' life experiences might be helpful,
such as encouraging students to observe and record the use of
energy in households and schools, arranging a visit to a power
plant close to their community to gain an understanding of how
electricity is made and what resources are used.
The average scores on energy-related affect were better than
those for behavior for overall students and the two levels. The
nding was close to earlier studies (DeWaters and Powers, 2011;
Murphy and Olson, 2008; Rajecki, 1982) where there was a discrepancy between affect and action. DeWaters and Powers (2011)
found that most students agreed saving energy was important and
making more electricity from renewable sources was necessary.
However, their responses on the behavioral subscale did not seem
to generally reect the positive affect. For example, about two
thirds of respondents reported that they turn off the lights when
leaving a room, but only one third shut down their computers. The
gap might in fact be larger than the data show because of overestimating behaviors with self-reported measures (Murphy and
Olson, 2008). In other words, there may not be a correspondence
between what people say they do and what they actually do. The
investigation of Minnesota's environment literacy attests to the

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

prior statement (Murphy and Olson, 2008). There respondents

reported that they conserved electricity by turning off lights and
appliances when not in use (90%), lowering the thermostat in the
winter (69%), and running the air conditioner less often in the
summer (52%), but data from the Minnesota Department of
Commerce on energy showed that overall electricity use for residential consumers had increased around 19% during the survey
period (Murphy and Olson, 2008). In the current study, such a bias
was not studied. Caution is needed in interpretation.
A gender effect was found in the affective domain; females
tended to have more positive attitudes and values, particularly for
the SHS level. The increase in gender inuence with age aligned
with previous works (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Lawrenz and
Dantchik, 1985) and seems to relate to the premise that female
may be more amenable to change as they progress through the
educational system. As for the males, factors inuencing affect
were not clear and more research is needed.
Like several other studies (Barrowa and Morrisey, 1989; Gambro and Switzky, 1999; Lawrenz, 1983; Murphy and Olson, 2008), a
gender disparity in the knowledge domain (in favor of males) was
signicant for JHS with a reverse outcome for the SHS level. Although the gap for SHS group is not signicant, it is encouraging to
see female's performance in science at the higher grades since
gender equality has been promoted in Taiwan for decades and
recent investigations are noting more awareness of the issue by
teachers (Fang and You, 2008) and less difference in classroom
treatment received by male and female students (Chen, 2005).
Turning to SES, Gambro and Switzky (1999) observed that
higher SES students had greater cognition scores but even at the
top status, knowledge remained disappointingly low. In our study,
the highest group had 70% correct on the knowledge items and the
lowest group 52%. The ndings underscore that SES is a foundation
on which the child builds her/his own experience via education.
Despite the performance on energy-related knowledge, conservation behavior appears to be more closely linked to affect than
knowledge (multiple regression results). To know is one thing and
to do is another. The role of knowledge in environmental behavior
is complex and probably not a linear cause-and-effect one with
social norms, economic situations, values, and beliefs being inuential (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Owens and Drifll, 2008;
Stern, 1992). Since affect plays a critical part in behavior, energy
education should, in addition to knowledge, strive to impact student attitudes, beliefs, and values via projects, case studies, decision making exercises, and action strategies as recommended by
some (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Zografakis et al., 2008). Some
of these strategies would also be advisable for the government in
implementing policies related to energy use for the public.

5. Conclusions and policy implications

5.1. Conclusions
This study aimed at measuring secondary students' energy
literacy in light of their performance on the domains of cognition,
affect and behavior, and exploring the correlations between them.
How the performance varied by grade, gender, and SES were examined and variables predictive of energy conservation behaviors
were identied. The results highlighted that the energy literacy of
students in Taiwan tends to be high and positive across domains.
Grade as expected had impact on the performance as senior high
school students outscored junior high school ones. Effects due to
socioeconomic status and gender were found in favor of students
in higher SES, females in SHS, and males in JHS. On the whole, age,
gender, family SES (family income and parents highest education
level) proved to be important factors in various areas of

105

knowledge, affect, and behavior, a result consistent with other

surveys (DeWaters and Powers, 2011; Murphy, 2002; Murphy and
Olson, 2008). Among the variables, energy saving behavior was
more predictable by affect than by knowledge and gender.
5.2. Policy implications
The ndings about energy literacy for secondary students
should be helpful to evaluators and decision makers in Taiwan and
elsewhere for policy formation and the design/development of
energy education programs. They may lead to curriculum and instructional methods that embrace not just energy-related knowledge, but value judgments, ethical and moral dimensions, decision
making skills, and personal responsibility for resource development and consumption. Performance in this case was good but
there is room to improve, and there is also a need for more rigorous program evaluation.
Regarding student background, family SES was identied as
one of the decisive factors regarding the acquisition of energy
knowledge. Bourdieu (1986) asserted that people from privileged
socioeconomic backgrounds tended to acquire more cultural capital and thereby obtain returns in the form of academic
achievement. In this case, although most students reported that
school had contributed most to their understanding of energy issues and problems, there was still 40% due to other things such as
books/newspapers/magazines, friends/family members, information from the internet, and television programs. Cognitive performance in higher SES group may be partially attributed to the
greater cultural resources to which they have access. That suggests
policy makers to think not only how to treat equal equally, but also
to treat unequal equally. Another notable background characteristic was grade (in favor of the SHS group). Schools cultivating
energy literacy and maintaining energy education programs is
fundamental. In the long term, there should be national curriculum standards for what should be taught along with procedures to
ensure if they have been met. More efforts along these lines are
warranted.
In addition to learning from the ofcial curriculum, it is advisable to promote energy literacy through the informal curriculum. The NTET project was an example in which students were
encouraged to explore energy-related topics via extracurricular
activities, student clubs, speeches, dramas, energy fairs, educational eld trips, etc. The energy innovation contest held by the
project ofce every year also functioned well in encouraging students to develop innovative ideas on energy efcient applications
and promoting the concept of energy efciency to the community.
Such informal curriculum was found in pockets of activity rather
than as an explicit policy. It should be considered further for stimulating student learning interests. We hope that doing so will
provide inspiration and guidance for anyone with an interest in
energy education.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said: Knowing is not enough; we
must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do (Gookin, 2003:
119). The connection between knowledge, affect, and behavior is
not fully clear. Beliefs, values, culture, intention, national policy,
and energy independence are intertwined as related to energy
consumption behaviors and those interactions might be an interesting avenue for exploration.
Finally, this study was the rst effort to investigate students'
energy literacy in a nationwide context in Taiwan. It created a
baseline understanding of the target population and the determinants of energy-saving behaviors. It is important to continue
conducting similar surveys periodically so that trends in energy
literacy can be tracked and well-informed decisions about education efforts can be made.

106

L.-S. Lee et al. / Energy Policy 76 (2015) 98106

Acknowledgment
This study was supported under a Ministry of Science and
Technology and Ministry of Education Grant in Taiwan.

References
Bamberg, S., Mser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a
new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 1425.
Barrowa, L.H., Morrisey, J.T., 1989. Energy literacy of ninth-grade students: a
comparison between Maine and New Brunswick. J. Environ. Educat. 20 (2),
2225.
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory
and Research For the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York,
pp. 241258.
Chen, J.M., 2005. A study on the implementation of gender equity education in
campus (Retrieved June, 2013. Available from: http://help2.ncue.edu.tw/ezcat
les/b014/img/img/263/study-schoolsex.pdf/).
Chen, K.L., Huang, S.H., Liu, S.Y., 2013. Devising a framework for energy education in
Taiwan using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 55, 396403.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ.
DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2007. Developing an energy literacy scale. In: Proceedings of the 114th Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI,
June 2328, 2007, paper number AC 2007-1069.
DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2008. Energy literacy among middle and high school
youth. In: Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Saratoga Springs, New York.
DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2011. Energy literacy of secondary students in New York
State (USA): a measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy 39,
16991710.
DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2013. Establishing measurement criteria for an energy
literacy questionnaire. Environ. Educ. 44 (1), 3855.
DeWaters, J., Qaqish, B., Graham, M., Powers, S., 2013. Designing an energy literacy
questionnaire for middle and high school youth. J. Environ. Educ. 44 (1), 5678.
Energy Center of Wisconsin, 1999. K-12 energy education program baseline study:
An evaluation of teacher practices and student and parent learning (Retrieved
Sep. 2013. Available from: http://www.ecw.org/ecwresults/188-1.pdf).
Fang, D.L., You, M.H., 2008. 2008 survey study of the implementation of gender
equity education curricula and instruction in elementary and secondary
schools. Ministry of Education, Taipei.
Gambro, J.S., Switzky, H.N., 1999. Variables associated with American high school
students' knowledge of environmental issues related to energy and pollution. J.
Environ. Educ. 30 (2), 1522.
Hu, Y.Z., 2011. Current status of energy efciency policies and measures in Taiwan.
Paper presented at 2011 USTaiwan Clean Energy Forum.
Jensen, B.B., 2002. Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behavior. Environ.
Educ. Res. 8, 325334.
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8
(3), 239260.
Lawrenz, F., 1983. Student knowledge of energy issues. Sch. Sci. Math. 83, 587595.

Lawrenz, F., Dantchik, A., 1985. Attitudes toward energy among students in grades
4, 7 and high school. Sch. Sci. Math. 85, 189202.
Lee, L.S., 2011. Identifying energy literacy for the upper secondary students in
Taiwan. Paper presented at the International Conference on Energy, Environment Entrepreneurship, Innovation (ICEEEI11). Lanzarote, Canary Islands,
Spain.
Lee, L.S., Lee, K.C., 2013. A framework for energy literacy outcomes and energy
education seed teachers' performance. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and. Educ. Stud. 5 (3), 257274.
Murphy, T.P., 2002. The Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy: A
Benchmark Survey of Adult Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes And Behaviors. Hamline University, Center for Global Environmental Education.
Murphy, T.P., Olson, A.M., 2008. The third Minnesota report card on environmental
literacy. The College of Saint Catherine; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
MN.
National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, 2002. Americans' low
energy IQ: A risk to our energy future. Why America needs a refresher course
on energy. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, Washington, DC.
National Energy Education Development Project, 2013. Secondary energy poll:
blueprint for success (Retrieved August 2013. Available from: http://www.
need.org/les/curriculum/guides/Blueprint%20for%20Success.pdf).
Newborough, M., Getvoldsen, P., Probert, D., Page, P., 1991. Primary- and secondary
level energy education in the UK. Appl. Energy 40, 119156.
Newborough, M., Probert, D., 1994. Purposeful energy education in the UK. Appl.
Energy 48, 243259.
NTET (Nurturing Talent for Energy Technology Program), 2013. Background and
goals (Retrieved August 2013. Available from: http://www.energyedu.tw/eng/
background.php).
Owens, S., Drifll, L., 2008. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context
of energy. Energy Policy 36, 44124418.
Rajecki, D.W., 1982. Attitudes: Themes and advances. Sinaur Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Rogers, W.M., 2010. Parallel forms reliability. In: Salkind, N.J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Research Design. Sage, CA, pp. 996998.
Stern, P.C., 1992. What psychology knows about energy conservation? Am. Psychol.
47 (10), 12241232.
Taiwan Bureau of Energy, 2009. Taiwan's energy policy and supply-demand situation. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taipei.
United States Global Change Research Program, 2012. Energy Literacy: Essential
Principles and Fundamental Concepts For Energy Education. US Department of
Energy, Washington, DC.
Wilderness wisdom: Quotes for inspirational exploration. In: Gookin, J. (Ed.), 2003.
National Outdoor Leadership School. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.
Wisconsin K-12 Energy Education Program, 2013. A rationale for energy education
(Retrieved August 2013. Available from: /http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/
Pages/About/Rationale.aspxS).
Yeh, K.L., Lee, Y.F., Pan, Y.J., 2013. A study on the relationship between social-economic status, psychological status and learning satisfaction for the post-secondary students. Paper presented at the International Conference on the
Construction and Utilization of Education Databases, Taipei.
Yergin, D., 2008. September 27. Energy independence. Wall Street Journal.
Zografakis, N., Menegaki, A.N., Tsagarakis, K.P., 2008. Effective education for energy
efciency. Energy Policy 36, 32263232.