Okul Öncesi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bir Çevre Konusuyla İlgili Duygusal Akıl Yürütmeleri: Çevre Eğitiminde İyi Tanımlanmış Çevresel Vakaların Kullanımı

Year 2024, Issue: 54, 50 - 69, 26.09.2024

Deniz Sarıbaş , Ertan Çetinkaya

https://doi.org/10.33418/education.1416579

Abstract

Çevre eğitimi, öğrencilerin ekolojik nişlerinin daha geniş çevrenin ayrılmaz bir bileşeni olduğu kavramını içselleştirmelerini sağlamalı ve doğa ile ilişkilerinde var olan karşılıklılığa dair ahlaki ve etik bir anlayışı beslemelidir. Duygusal muhakeme, bu eko-etik perspektifin önemli bir yönüdür. Bu perspektiften hareketle, bu çalışma okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının (OÖÖA'lar) bir çevre sorununa ilişkin duygusal muhakemelerini keşfetmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmacılar, vahşi yaşamın ve çevrenin korunması ile insan ihtiyaçları arasındaki etik ikilemleri içeren bir çevre sorunu hakkında bir senaryo oluşturmuşlardır. Araştırmacılar dokuz olası seçeneği listelemiş ve katılımcılardan bu seçeneklerden birini veya daha fazlasını seçmelerini ve yanıtlarını yansıtmalarında detaylandırmalarını istemiştir. Bu çalışmaya elli üç OÖÖA katılmıştır. Araştırmacılar, katılımcıların her bir kategorideki yanıtlarını kodlamış ve katılımcıların yansıtmalarındaki kararlarını ve detaylandırma düzeylerini bağımsız olarak analiz etmiştir. Sonuçlar en çok sorumluluk dağılımı, merhamet, öfke ve haklı kızgınlık kategorilerinde bir yığılma olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar ayrıca, OÖÖA'ların duygusal akıl yürütmelerinde çoğunlukla yüksek düzeyde yargılama ve yüksek ve orta düzeyde detaylandırma olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitiminin, öğretmen adaylarının duygusal muhakemelerini incelemek için iyi tanımlanmış çevresel vakaları içerecek şekilde revize edilmesi gerektiğini ve böylece çevre eğitiminde çevresel farkındalıklarının artırılması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu araştırma, öğretmen adaylarının yaban hayatı konularındaki duygusal akıl yürütmelerini anlamak ve bu anlayışı öğretim uygulamalarına etkili bir şekilde dahil etmelerini sağlamak açısından da önemlidir.

Keywords

Öğretmen adayları, duygusal muhakeme, çevre sorunu

Pre-Service Early Childhood Teachers’ Emotive Reasoning about an Environmental Issue: Using Well-Defined Environmental Cases in Environmental Education

Abstract

Environmental education should empower learners to internalize the concept that their ecological niche is an integral component of the larger environment, nurturing a moral and ethical understanding of the reciprocity inherent in their relationship with nature. Emotive reasoning is a crucial aspect of this eco-ethical perspective. From this perspective, this study aims to explore pre-service early childhood teachers’ (PECTs) emotive reasoning about an environmental issue. The researchers created a scenario about an environmental issue including ethical dilemmas of protecting wildlife and environment and human needs. The researchers listed nine possible options and asked the participants to choose one or more of these options and elaborate on their responses in their reflections. Fifty-three PECTs participated in this study. The researchers coded the participants’ responses in each category and analyzed the participants’ decision and elaboration levels in their reflections independently. The results indicate an accumulation mostly in the categories of diffusion of responsibility, compassion, anger, and righteous indignation. The results also revealed mostly a high level of judgment and a high and moderate level of elaboration in PECTs’ emotive reasoning. The results suggest that pre-service teacher education should be revised to include well-defined environmental cases to examine pre-service teachers' emotive reasoning, thus increasing their environmental awareness in environmental education. This exploration is also important to understand their emotive reasoning about wildlife issues and enable them to effectively incorporate this understanding into their teaching practices.

Keywords

Pre-service teachers, emotive reasoning, environmental issue

Ethical Statement

The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards and approved by Educational Sciences Ethics Committee. Its approval number is E-42048860-020-19625.

References

• Akinsemolu, A. A. (2020). Effects of everyday activities on the ecosystem. In A. A. Akinsemolu (Ed.), The principles of green and sustainability science (pp. 81-107). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2493-6_4
• Anufrieva, N. I., Volkov, L. V., Aralova, E. V., Kolomyts, O. G., & Myagkova, E. V. (2020). Environmental education: Nurturing of the humanistic orientation of a personality. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 5529-5535. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081156
• Ardoin, N. M., & Bowers, A. W. (2020). Early childhood environmental education: A systematic review of the research literature. Educational Research Review, 31, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353
• Arvai, J. L., Campbell, V. E., Baird, A., & Rivers, L. (2004). Teaching students to make better decisions about the environment: Lessons from the decision sciences. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.1.33-44
• Basile, C. G. (2000). Environmental education as a catalyst for transfer of learning in young children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598668
• Bazzul, J. (2020). Political entanglement and the changing nature of science. In H. Yacoubian & L. Hansson (Eds.), Nature of science for social justice (pp. 79–95). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47260-3
• Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
• Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Education Sciences, 11(9), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090522
• Bencze, L., Alsop, S., Ritchie, A., Bowen, M., & Chen, S. (2015). Pursuing youth-led socio-scientific activism: Conversations of participation, pedagogy and power. In M. Mueller & D. Tippins (Eds.), EcoJustice, citizen science and youth activism (pp. 333-347). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11608-2
• Benzce, J. L., & Carter, L. C. (2020). Capitalism, Nature of Science and Science Education: Interrogating and Mitigating Threats to Social Justice. In H. Yacoubian & L. Hansson (Eds.), Nature of science for social justice. Science: philosophy, history and education. (pp. 59-78). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47260-3_4
• Brosch, T. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: A review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001
• Büssing, A. G., Schleper, M., & Menzel, S. (2019). Emotions and pre-service teachers’ motivation to teach the context of returning wolves. Environmental Education Research, 25(8), 1174-1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1487034
• Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S-W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-679. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
• Collado, S., & Sorrel, M. A. (2019). Children's environmental moral judgments: Variations according to type of victim and exposure to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.005
• Dentith, A. M., Hash, P. E., & Baines, C. P. (2022). The ecological curriculum: Ecoliteracy, ecojustice, ecopedagogy and sustainability education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-REE221-1
• Doley, D. M., & Barman, P. (2023). Importance of communicating biodiversity for sustainable wildlife management: a review. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 13, 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00819-8
• Dunlop, L., & Rushton, E. A. C. (2022). Education for environmental sustainability and the emotions: Implications for educational practice. Sustainability, 14(8), 4441. http://doi.org/10.3390/su14084441
• Echegoyen-Sanz, Y., & Martín-Ezpeleta, A. (2021). A holistic approach to education for sustainability: Ecofeminism as a tool to enhance sustainability attitudes in pre-service teachers. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 23(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2021-0002
• Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Osborne, J. (2012) ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
• Evans, G. W. (2019). Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 449- 474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103023
• Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2
• Ferguson, T., & Bramwell-Lalor, S. (2023). Promoting environmental and sustainability education in the Caribbean: research imperatives to inform practice. Environmental Education Research, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2225810
• Freed, A., & Wong, D. (2019). The relationship between university students’ environmental identity, decision-making process, and behavior. Journal of Sustainability Education, 20, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1320705
• Geiges, A., Nauels, A., Parra, P. Y., Andrijevic, M., Hare, W., Pfleiderer, P., Schaeffer, M., & Schleussner, C.-F. (2020). Incremental improvements of 2030 targets insufficient to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Earth System Dynamics, 11(3), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-697-2020
• Ginsburg, J. L., & Audley, S. (2020). “You don’t wanna teach little kids about climate change”: Beliefs and Barriers to Sustainability Education in Early Childhood. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 7(3), 42-61. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/edc_facpubs/13
• Gresch, H. & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Identifying non-sustainable courses of action: A prerequisite for decision-making in education for sustainable development. Research in Science Education, 43, 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9287-0
• Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2019). Environmental literacy for all: Innovating environmental education for teacher education majors and non-education majors. In: Karrow, D., & DiGiuseppe, M. (eds) Environmental and Sustainability Education in Teacher Education. International Explorations in Outdoor and Environmental Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25016-4_10
• Ha, H., Park, W., & Song, J. (2022). Preservice elementary teachers’ socioscientific reasoning during a decision-making activity in the context of COVID-19. Science & Education, 32, 1869-1886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00359-7
• Han-Tosunoğlu, C., & Özer, F. (2022). Exploring pre-service biology teachers’ informal reasoning and decision-making about COVID-19. Science & Education, 31, 325-355.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00272-5
• Hao, F. (2014). The effect of economic affluence and ecological degradation on Chinese environmental concern: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0166-z
• Harding, R. (1998). Environmental decision making. The Federation.
• Herman B. C., Sadler T. D., Zeidler D. L., & Newton M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In G. Reis, J. Scott (Eds.), International perspectives on the theory and practice of environmental education: A reader. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3
• Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2020). Students’ emotive reasoning through place-based environmental socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 2081-2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9764-1
• Ito, H. & Igano, C. (2020). Place-based environmental education to promote eco-initiatives: The case of Yokohama, Japan. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7(1), 292-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1794950
• Jimenez, J. & Kabachnick, P. (2023). Indigenizing environmental sustainability curriculum and pedagogy: Confronting our global ecological crisis via Indigenous sustainabilities. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(5), 1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2193666
• Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientific reasoning. Science & Education, 28, 605–638 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2
• Karahan, E. (2023). Using video-elicitation focus group interviews to explore pre-service science teachers’ views and reasoning on artificial intelligence. International Journal of Science Education, 45(15), 1283-1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2200887
• Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
• Ladachart, L. & Ladachart, L. (2021) Preservice biology teachers’ decision-making and informal reasoning about culture-based socioscientific issues, International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 641-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1876958
• Lee, H., Kyunghee, C., Kim, S., Jungsook, Y., Krajcik, J. S., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values as global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079–2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
• Martusewicz, R. A., Edmundson, J., & Lupinacci, J. (2021). Ecojustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Martusewicz, R.A., Lupinacci, J., & Schnakenberg, G. (2010). EcoJustice education for science educators (pp. 11-27). In D. Tippins, M. P. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams, (Eds.), Cultural Studies and Environmentalism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_3
• McGimpsey, I., Rousell, D. & Howard, F. (2023) A double bind: Youth activism, climate change, and education, Educational Review, 75(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2119021
• Morrison, S. A. (2018). Reframing Westernized culture: insights from a Critical Friends Group on EcoJustice education. Environmental education research, 24(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1223838
• Nautiyal, S., & Nidamanuri, R.R. (2012). Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of conservation policies in biodiversity hotspots: a case study from Rajiv Gandhi National Park, India. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2, 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0052-x
• Owens, D. C., Herman, B. C., Oertli, R. T., Lannin, A. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Secondary science and mathematics teachers’ environmental issues engagement through socioscientific reasoning. Eurasia Journal of
• Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(6), em1693. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103561
• Owens, D.C., Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(4), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717745
• Özden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socioscientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
• Reis, G., Ng-A-Fook, N., & Glithero, L. (2015). Provoking ecojustice-taking citizen science and youth activism beyond the school curriculum (pp. 39–61). In M. P. Mueller & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), EcoJustice, citizen science and youth activism: situated tensions for science education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11608-2
• Rios, C., Neilson, A. L., & Menezes, I. (2021). COVID-19 and the desire of children to return to nature: Emotions in the face of environmental and intergenerational injustices. The Journal of Environmental Education, 52(5), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2021.1981207
• Rodríguez, G. A., & Vargas-Chaves, I. (2018). Participation in environmental decision making as an imperative for democracy and environmental justice in Colombia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 9(6), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.2478/mjss-2018-0170
• Rudyshyn, S. D., Stakhova, I. A., Sharata, N. H., Berezovska, T. V., & Kravchenko, T. P. (2021). The effects of using a case study method for environmental education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(6), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.6.17
• Sabel, J. L., Vo, T., Alred, A., Dauer, J. M., & Forbes, C. T. (2017). Undergraduate Students' Scientifically Informed Decision Making About Socio-Hydrological Issues. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(6), 71-79. https://my.nsta.org/resource/?id=10.2505/4/jcst17_046_06_71
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A. & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
• Shi, Y., Li, C., & Zhao, M., (2021). Herders’ aversion to wildlife population increases in grassland ecosystem conservation: Evidence from a choice experiment study. Global Ecology and Conservation. 30, e01777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01777
• Singh, R. L., Singh, P. K. (2017). Global Environmental Problems. In Singh, R. (Eds) Principles and Applications of Environmental Biotechnology for a Sustainable Future. Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future (pp. 13-41). Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1866-4_2
• Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., & Biggs, R. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
• Spiteri, J. (2021). Why is it important to protect the environment? Reasons presented by young children. Environmental Education Research, 27(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1829560
• Tsevreni, I. (2021). Nature journaling as a holistic pedagogical experience with the more-than-human world. The Journal of Environmental Education, 52(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1724854 UNDP (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals
• UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Project. (2016). Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. UNESCO.
• United Nations / Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 21st Conference of the Parties. United Nations.
• Uralovich, K. S., Toshmamatovich, T. U., Kubayevich, K. F., Sapaev, I. B., Saylaubaevna, S. S., Beknazarova, Z. F., & Khurramov, A. (2023). A primary factor in sustainable development and environmental sustainability is environmental education. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 21(4), 965-975. Doi: 10.22124/cjes.2023.7155
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
• Yerbury, B. & Weiler, B. (2020) From human wellbeing to an ecocentric perspective: How nature-connectedness can extend the benefits of marine wildlife experiences, Anthrozoös, 33(4), 461-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1771054
• Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations (pp. 7-38). In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X
• Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research‐based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
• Zummo, L., Gargroetzi, E., & Garcia, A. (2020) Youth voice on climate change: Using factor analysis to understand the intersection of science, politics, and emotion. Environmental Education Research, 26(8), 1207-1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1771288