Developing Sustainable Education Disposition Scale and Teacher Views regarding the Education Disposition

Year 2020, , 65 - 81, 24.01.2020

Fatma Köybaşı

https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.483133

Cited By: 4

Abstract

This study aimed at developing a scale to measure the level at which schools stand for offering sustainable education. In addition, it was aimed to examine teachers' views on sustainable education disposition against school type or gender. This study is a descriptive survey and consists of two stages. As the first step, a sustainability scale was developed by the researcher to determine the level of sustainable education. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes along with reliability checks were conducted. Explanatory factor analysis was performed with the data from 209 teachers working at schools in Şarkışla and Yıldızeli districts and the scale was found to be one-dimensional with 32 items. Following the explanatory process, the scale was applied to 152 participants in Suşehri district for confirmatory factor analysis. The latter analysis was performed on the data obtained from the study group and the goodness-of-fit test was found within the acceptable limits. According to results, it can be inferred that the teachers have a high level of disposition to sustainable education. It was found out that teachers' views on sustainable education disposition differ between genders in favor of males. 

Keywords

sustainability, sustainable education, sustainable education disposition

References

• Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49 (2),155-173.
• Andersson, K., Jagers, S.C., Lindskog, A. & Martinsson, J. (2013). Learning for the future? Effects of education for sustainable development (ESD) on teacher education students. Sustainability, 5, 5135-5152.
• Becker, G. S. & Chiswick, B. R. (1966). Education and the distribution of earnings. The American Economic Review, 56(1/2), 358-369.
• Blowers, A. (2003). Environmental planning for sustainable development. (Blowers, A.& Evans, B., Eds). In Town Planning into the 21 st Century. London: Routledge, pp. 33-54.
• Brand, K.W. (2002). Politik der nachhaltigkeit: voraussetzungen, probleme, Berlin: Edition Sigma.
• Cebrián, G. & Junyent, M. (2015). Competencies in education for sustainable development: Exploring the student teachers’ views. Sustainability, 7, 2768-2786.
• Chalkley, B., Haigh, M., & Higgitt, D. (2013). Education for sustainable development: papers in honour of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014). New York: Routledge.
• Chapin III, F. S., Torn, M. S., & Tateno, M. (1996). Principles of ecosystem sustainability. TheAmericanNaturalist, 148(6), 1016-1037. DOI. 10.1086/285969
• Cohen, M. (1988). Restructuring the Education System: Agenda for the 1990s. Washington DC: National Governors' Association.
• Esteva, G. (2010). Development. (Wolfgang. S. Ed.) In the development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power, London: Zed Books, pp. 1–24.
• Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309-3322.
• Frankel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8. press).: New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Jickling, B. & Wals, A.E.J. (2007). Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40(1), 1–21.
• Lenz, C. (2013). Sürdürülebilir demokratik toplumlar için eğitimin kilit rolü. [The key role of education for sustainable democratic societies] (Çev. M. G., Tamer) Journal of Social Sciences Institute of Hitit University, 6(2), 103-110.
• Lijmbach, S., Van Arcken, M.M., Van Koppen, C. S. A.& Wals, A. E. (2002). Your view of nature is not mine’. Learning about pluralism in the classroom, Environmental Education Research, 8(2), 121–135.
• Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
• Ohman, J., Ostman, L., & Sandell, K. (2005). Education for sustainable development: Nature, school and democracy. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
• Pauw, J.B.-D., Gericke, N., Olsson, D. & Berglund, T. (2015). The effectiveness of education for sustainable development. Sustainability, 7, 15693-15717.
• Rauch, F. (2002). The potential of education for sustainable development for reform in schools. Environmental Education Research, 8 (1), 43-51.
• Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform. Daedalus, 127(4), 89-118.
• Sachs, W. (Ed.). (1997). Development dictionary, The: A guide to knowledge as power. India: Orient Blackswan.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Scott, W. & Gough, S. (2003). Sustainable development and learning: Framing the issues, London: Routledge Falmer.
• Spahiu, M.H. & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2015). Effect of a toolkit and a one-day teacher education workshop on esd teaching content and methods. A study from Kosovo. Sustainability, 7, 8051-8066.
• Stables, A.& Scott, W. (2002). The quest for holism in education for sustainable development, Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 53–60.
• Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change. Schumacher Briefings, Dartington: Green Books.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. [Structural equation models: Basic concepts and sample applications]. Turkish psychology writings,3(6), 49-74.
• Sund, P. & Wickman, P. O. (2008). Teachers’ objects of responsibility: something to care about in education for sustainable development? Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 145-163.
• Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education (Vol. 95). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674637825
• Uhl, C., Kulakowski, D., Gerwing, J., Brown, M., & Cochrane, M. (1996). Sustainability: A touchstone concept for university operations, education, and research. Conservation Biology, 10(5), 1308-1311.
• UNESCO (2009). Education for Sustainable Development 2009. Available online. http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=23295&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. (Accessed on 25 October 2017).
• Wals, A.E.J. & Jickling, B.(2000). Process‐based environmental education: setting standards without standardising. (Jensen, B.B., Schnack, K. & Simovska, V. , Eds) In Critical Environmental and Health Education, Copenhagen, Research issues and challenges, pp. 127-149.
• Wheeler, K. A. & Bijur, A. P. (2000). Education for a sustainable future: a paradigm of hope for the 21st century (Vol. 7). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, ISBN. 978-1-4615-4277-3
• Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325–344.DOI. 10.1002/sce.10129
• Wolff, L.-A., Sjöblom, P., Hofman-Bergholm, M.& Palmberg, I. (2017). High Performance Education Fails in Sustainability? A Reflection on Finnish Primary Teacher Education. Education. Sciences, 7, 32.