Young Slovenian learners’ knowledge about animal diversity on different continents

Year 2016, , 0 - 0, 20.07.2016

Gregor Torkar , Irma Mavrič

https://doi.org/10.20876/ijobed.07914

Cited By: 5

Abstract

This study examined young Slovenian learners’ knowledge about animal diversity on different continents, which is important information conveyed during their education about different biomes on the Earth and about preservation of biodiversity. Altogether, 198 young learners 5 to 12 years old were interviewed via a questionnaire. They were asked to name three species of animals for each continent. In the second part of the questionnaire they answered questions designed to reveal their interest in plants, animals, and nature in general. Lastly, young learners were asked to name their most frequent source of information about animals. The study findings show that young Slovenian learners know animal species living in Africa and Europe the best. Mammals are the most commonly mentioned group of animals, particularly large mammals and pets. They possess several misconceptions about animal species ranges, such as those of penguins and tigers. Older children named more animal species than younger ones, and boys named reptiles more often and amphibians less often than girls. Television is the most important source of information about animals, followed by books and magazines, schools, and the internet.

References

• Barbas, T. A., Paraskevopoulos, S., & Stamou, A. G. (2009). The effect of nature documentaries on students’ environmental sensitivity: A case study. Learning Media and Technology, 34(1), 61–69.
• Barney, E. C., Mintzes, J. J., & Yen C. (2005). Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward charismatic megafauna: The case of dolphins. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(2), 41–55.
• Bell, P., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A., & Green, T. C. (1990). Environmental Psychology. Fort Worth, TX, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use the Language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Clucas, B., McHugh K., & Caro, T. (2008). Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 1517–1528.
• Geerdts, M.S., Van de Walle, G.A., & LoBue, V. (2015). Daily animal exposure and children’s biological concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 132–146.
• Genovart, M., Tavecchia, G., Enseñat, J. J., & Laiolo, P. (2013). Holding up a mirror to the society: Children recognize exotic species much more than local ones. Biological Conservation, 159, 484–489.
• Insley, J. (2007). Setting the scene. Museums Journal, 2, 33–35.
• Kubiatko, M. (2012). Kindergarten children’s perception of animals focusing on the look and fear of animals. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 3181–3186.
• Kubiatko, M., & Prokop, P. (2007). Pupils’ Misconceptions about Animals. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 5–14.
• Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). “Loveable” mammals and “lifeless” plants: how children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.
• Pagani, C., Robustelli, F., & Ascione, F. R. (2007). Italian youths’ attitudes toward, and concern for, animals. Anthrozoös, 20(3), 275–293.
• Palmer, J.A., & Suggate, J. (2004). The development of children’s understanding of distant places and environmental issues: Report of a UK longitudinal study of the development of ideas between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Research Papers in Education, 19(2), 205–237.
• Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students name? Where do they see them? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 630–642.
• Prokop, P., Kubiatko, M., & Fančovičová, J. (2007). Why do cocks crow? Children’s concepts about birds. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 393–405.
• Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). Effects of keeping animals as pets on children’s concepts of vertebrates and invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 431–449.
• Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe. S. D. (2010). Effects of having pets at home on children’s attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozoös, 23(1), 21–35.
• Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20, 61–74.
• Rejeski, D.W. (1982). Children look at nature: Environmental perception and education. Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 27–40.
• Russell, T. (1993). An alternative conception: Representing representations, in Black, P. & Lucas, A.M., (eds.), Children’s Informal Ideas in Science, London, Routledge.
• Spencer, C., Blades, M., & Morsley, K. (1989). The Child in the Physical Environment. Chichester, John Wiley.
• Torkar, G., Kubiatko, M., & Bajd, B. (2012). Assessing pre-service teachers (dis)liking of some animal species. Journal of Baltic Education, 11(4), 393–402.
• Torkar, G., Praprotnik, L., & Bajd, B. (2007). Future teachers’ relationship to animals. Didacta Slovenica, 22(1–2), 136–149.
• Tunnicliffe, S.D., Gatt, S., Agius, C., & Pizzuto, S. A. (2008). Animals in the lives of young Maltese children. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 215–221.
• Tunnicliffe, S.D., & Reiss, M.J. (1999). Building a model of the environment: How do children see animals? Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 142–147.
• van Weelie, D., & Wals, A. (2002). Making biodiversity meaningful through environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(1), 13–17.
• Yen, C. F., Yao, T. W., & Chiu, Y. C. (2004). Alternative conceptions in animal classification focusing on amphibians and reptiles: A cross-age study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics