Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, açıklayıcı sıralı karma yöntem tasarımını kullanarak, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlığının gelişimi üzerinde argümantasyona dayalı çevre eğitiminin etkisini araştırmaktadır.  Yöntem: Toplam 55 öğretmen adayı, deney (n=28) ve kontrol (n=27) gruplarına ayrılmıştır. Yedi haftalık bir süre boyunca, deney grubu çevresel konularda senaryo tabanlı argümantasyon eğitimi alırken, kontrol grubu geleneksel bir öğretim yaklaşımını izlemiştir. Nicel veriler, “Çevre Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Nitel veriler ise yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Bulgular: Bağımsız örneklem t-testleri, deney grubunun, kontrol grubuna kıyasla çevresel bilgi (t(53)=4.86, p<0.001), çevresel tutum (t(53)=2.97, p<0.01) ve çevre kullanımı (t(53)=2.85, p<0.01) konusunda önemli ölçüde daha yüksek kazanımlar gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, nitel bulgular istatistiksel sonuçları destekleyerek, argümantasyona dayalı eğitimin öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme, motivasyon ve bilimsel kavramları çevre sorunlarıyla ilişkilendirme becerilerini geliştirdiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç: Bu bulgular, argümantasyona dayalı çevre eğitiminin, fen bilgisi öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında çevre okuryazarlığını geliştirmek için etkili bir yaklaşım olduğunu göstermektedir.

The Impact of Argumentation-Based Environmental Education on the Environmental Literacy of Pre-service Science Teachers

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigates the impact of argumentation-based environmental education on the development of environmental literacy among pre-service science teachers (PSTs) using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Method: A total of 55 PSTs were divided into experimental (n=28) and comparison (n=27) groups. Over a seven-week period, the experimental group received scenario-based argumentation instruction on environmental issues, while the comparison group followed a traditional instructional approach. Quantitative data were collected using the “Environmental Literacy Scale”, and qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Findings: Independent samples t-tests revealed that the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher gains in environmental knowledge (t(53)=4.86, p<0.001), environmental attitude (t(53)=2.97, p< 0.01), and environmental use (t(53)=2.85, p< 0.01) compared to the comparison group. Furthermore, qualitative findings supported the statistical results, indicating that argumentation-based instruction enhanced PSTs’ critical thinking, motivation, and ability to connect scientific concepts with real-world environmental issues. Conclusion: These findings suggest that argumentation-based environmental education is an effective approach for fostering environmental literacy in science teacher education programs.

Keywords

• argumentation-based education
• environmental literacy
• pre-service science teachers

References

1. Altun, E., & Özsevgeç, T. (2024). Improving pre-service science teachers’ argumentation skills through a structured instructional module. Science & Education, 33(2), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00612-1
2. Basile, C. (2000). Environmental education as a catalyst for transfer of learning in young children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598668
3. Batchar, E. L., & Abad, J. V. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ environmental literacy and readiness for green education initiatives. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), 245–262. http://www.journalijisr.com/
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Burek, K. (2012). The impact of socioscientific issues-based curriculum involving environmental outdoor education for 4th-grade students (Doctoral Dissertation). University of South Florida. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/3997/
6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Inc.
8. Çiçek Şentürk, Ö., & Selvi, M. (2023). Argumentation-supported educational comics as a teaching tool for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 30(2), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2227357

9. Dada, D. O., Eames, C., & Calder, N. (2017). Impact of environmental education on beginning preservice teachers’ environmental literacy. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 33(3), 201–222. doi 10.1017/aee.2017.27
10. Deniz, T. (2014). Use of socioscientific argumentation approach in environmental education [Master’s Thesis, Gazi University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
11. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994).Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005
12. Duschl, R. A., & J. Osborne. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
13. Erduran, S., & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. D. Jorde and J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (p. 253–289). Sense Publishers.
14. Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park. J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998 to 2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
15. Erenler, S., Cetin, P.S. & Eymur, G. (2025. Impact of argument-driven inquiry activities on pre-service science teachers’ views of the nature of scientific inquiry in the context of climate change education. Science & Education, 34, 2251–2281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00512-4
16. Ernst, J. (2007). Factors associated with K-12 teachers’ use of environment-based education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.3.15-32
17. Eroğlu, E. (2019). Argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme yönteminin ortaokul 6.sınıf öğrencilerinin çevreye yönelik tutum, davranış ve başarıya etkisi [Master’s Thesis, Gazi University]. https://avesis.gazi.edu.tr/yonetilen-tez/d70433b5-c8d1-4e36-8720-8fc436ac24aa/argumantasyon-tabanli-ogrenme-yonteminin-ortaokul-6-sinif-ogrencilerinin-cevreye-yonelik-tutum-davranis-ve-basariya-etkisi
18. Espino, R. B. (2009). Teaching science as argument: Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge [Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University].
19. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhDT.......196B/abstract
20. Faize, F. A., & Akhtar, M. (2020). Addressing environmental knowledge and environmental attitude in undergraduate students through scientific argumentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119928
21. Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2013). Argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımı. G. Ekici ve M. Güven (Ed.), Yeni öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımları ve uygulama örnekleri (1. baskı, s.140–170). Pegem Yayıncılık.
22. Fettahlioglu, P. (2016). The effect of argumentation based learning approach supported by online argumentation on environmental knowledge and awareness. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12(6), 1311–1336. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/262348
23. Fettahlioglu, P. (2018). The effects of argumentation implementation on environmental education self efficacy beliefs and perspectives according to environmental problems. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(4), 199–211. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1174482
24. Fettahlioglu, P., & Aydogdu, M., (2020). Developing environmentally responsible behaviours through the implementation of argumentation- and problem-based learning models. Research in Science Education , 50(3), 987–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9720-0
25. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Pearson.
26. Gheith, E. (2019). Environmental literacy among prospective classroom teachers in Jordan. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(12), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.12.16
27. Goulgouti, A., Plakitsi, K., & Stylos, G. (2019). Environmental literacy: Evaluating knowledge, affect, and behavior of pre-service teachers in Greece. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 15(1), e02202. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/6287
28. Gökçe, N., Kaya, E., Aktay, S., & Özden, M. (2007). Elementary students’ attitudes towards environment. Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 452–468. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/91001
29. Gultepe, N. & Kilic, Z. (2021). The effects of scientific argumentation on high school students’ critical thinking skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(6), 183-200. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.13
30. Güvenir, Z., & Türkmen, L. (2024). The examination of preschool children’s environmental attitudes and awareness. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 21(3), 430–447. doi: 10.36681/tused.2024.023
31. Hamalosmanoğlu, M., & Varinlioğlu, S. (2019). The effects of argumentation activities on seventh grade students’ environmental attitudes and their knowledge level. Science Education International, 30(3), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i3.2
32. Hohenshell, L. (2004). Enhancing science literacy though implementation of writing- to – learn strategies: Exploratory studies in high school biology [Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University]. https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-8816
33. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decesion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
34. Ide, T. & Tubi, A.. (2019). Education and environmental peacebuilding: Insights from three projects in Israel and Palestine. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110, 1–17. Doi. 10.1080/24694452.2019.1613954
35. Jime´nez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
36. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. S. Erduran and MP Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (p. 3–27). Springer.
37. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
38. Kabapinar, F. (2009). What makes concept cartoons more effective? Using research to inform practice. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(154), 104–118. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/552/39
39. Kaçar, S., & Balım, A. G. (2021). Investigating the effects of argument-driven inquiry method in science course on secondary school students’ levels of conceptual understanding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(4), 816–845. doi: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.105
40. Kaplowitz, M. D., & Levine, R. (2005). How environmental knowledge measures up at a big ten university. Environmental Education Research, 11(2), 143–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350462042000338324
41. Kışoğlu, M. (2009). Öğrenci merkezli öğretimin öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlığı düzeyine etkisinin araştırılması [Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=S-ljX2mS9jBXQqRkO9d-hg&no=VZAjtS6HE4aXbuc-_xMcpQ
42. Koc, I. & Kuvac, M. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ attitudes toward environment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(13), 5925–5941
43. Kolsto, S. O. (2010). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
44. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics, Use and Interpretation. 2nd Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah.
45. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (Eds.). (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Liu, P., Teng, M., & Han, C. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138126
47. Loubser, L., Swanepoel, C., & Chacko, C. (2001). Concept formulation for environmental literacy. South African Journal of Education, 21(4), 317–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/saje.v21i4.24922
48. Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
49. Moody, G., Alkaff, H., Garrison, D., & Golley, F. (2005). Assessing the environmental literacy requirement at the university of Georgia. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 3–9. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3200/JOEE.36.4.3-9
50. MSU-WATER (2001-2006). Social Assessment: Stakeholder attitudes, beliefs, and uses of water resources, co-PI M. Kaplowitz and S. Witter Vice President of Finance and Operations, Michigan State University.
51. Namdar, B., & Topbaş, L. (2024). The effect of online argumentation activities workshop on pre-service science teachers’ climate change awareness. Pedagogical Research, 9(3), em0207. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/14456
52. Naylor, S. & Keogh, B. (2013). Concept cartoons: What have we learnt? Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 3–11. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/273
53. Okumuş, S. (2012). Maddenin halleri ve isı ünitesinin bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) modeli ile öğretiminin öğrenci başarısına ve anlama düzeylerine etkisi [Master’s Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University]. https://avesis.ktu.edu.tr/yonetilen-tez/f369bb26-16af-46c9-9e46-760626aa2167/maddenin-halleri-ve-isi-unitesinin-bilimsel-tartisma-argumantasyon-modeli-ile-ogretiminin-ogrenci-basarisina-ve-anlama-duzeylerine-etkisi
54. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, W. L., & Oldfield, M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 869–897. DOI 10.1002/tea.21020
55. Özey, R. (2009). Çevre Sorunları. Aktif Yayınevi.
56. Pabuccu, A., & Erduran., S. (2017). Beyond rote learning in organic chemistry: The infusion and impact of argumentation in tertiary education. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1154–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1319988
57. Pekel, F. O. (2019). Effectiveness of argumentation-based concept cartoons on teaching global warming, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 20(2), 945–953.
58. Psycharis, S. (2013). Examining the effect of the computational models on learning performance, scientific reasoning, epistemic beliefs and argumentation: An implication for the STEM agenda. Computers & Education, 68, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.015
59. Rodríguez Pérez, R., Cebrián Robles, D., & Raposo Rivas, M. (2024). Environmental literacy and sustainable food consumption: A study with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 14(8), 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080912
60. Roth, C. E. (1968). Curriculum overwiev for developing environmentally literate citizens. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/32/38/8c.pdf
61. Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. ERIC Document Reproduction, Service No: ED348 235.
62. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
63. Schmoker, M., & Graff, G. (2011). More argument, fewer standards. Education Week, 30(28), 31–33.
64. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage Publications.
65. Teksöz, G., Şahin, E., & Ertepınar, H. (2010). Çevre okuryazarlığı, öğretmen adayları ve sürdürülebilir bir gelecek. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 307–320. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87477
66. Tigan, E., Brinzan, O., Obrad, C., Lungu, M., Sîrb, N., Anda, M., & Gavrilas, S. (2021). The consumption of organic, traditional, and/or European eco-label products: Elements of local production and sustainability. Sustainability, 13, 9944.
67. Tran, H. U., LePage, B. A., & Fang, W. T. (2022). Environmental literacy and teaching activities of preschool teachers in Vietnam. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(4), 2357–2371. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.4.2357
68. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University.
69. Tuncer, G., Tekkaya, C., Sungur, S., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Kaplowitz, M. (2009). Assessing pre-service teachers’ environmental literacy in Turkey as a mean to develop teacher education programs. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.10.003
70. UNEP, United Nations Environment Program. (2002). World Summit on Sustainable Development. Retrieved Mart 15, 2022, from. http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit-docs/2009-keyoutcomes-commitments.doc
71. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]-United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. (1975). The international workshop on environmental education. Belgrade final report. Paris: UNESCO.
72. Vilmala, R., Sari, D. P., & Rahmawati, D. (2023). Sustainability literacy of climate change: A survey study on pre-service elementary teachers. Indonesian Journal of Basic Education Research, 4(1), 1–12.
73. Vilmala, B. K., Suhandi, A., Permanasari, A., Kaniawati, I., & Purwanto, H. (2023). Environmental literacy portrait of pre-service science teacher in Indonesia. Journal of Environment and Sustainability Education, 1(1), 1–6. https://joease.id/index.php/joease/article/view/4
74. Waghid, Y. (2005). Action as educational virtue: toward a different understanding of democratic citizeship ecucation. Educational Theory, 55(3), 323–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2005.00006.x
75. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
76. Wang, T. H. (2014). Implementation of Web-based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12061
77. Wilson, R. (1996). Environmental education programs for preschool children. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(4), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1996.9941473
78. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8%3C807::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-7.