Understandings of Students’ Environmental Ethics About Importance of Biodiversity in Kars

Year 2018, , 907 - 912, 15.05.2018

Sibel Gürbüzoğlu Yalmancı

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.415710

Abstract

Turkey is among the most important biodiversity areas of the world. For this reason Biodiversity education is a necessity for Turkey and researches on this issue is important. The identification of environmental ethics approaches that will form the basis for students’ thinking about important environmental issues such as biodiversity will present different perspectives for the solution of this issue which has become an environmental problem and will affect environmental behavior. The aim of this study is to determine tthe students’ environmental ethics approaches for the importance of biodiversity. The case study was used in the study within the qualitative research model. As a data collection tool, a questionnaire form consisting of open ended questions was used. Content analysis and percent value calculations were made for the analysis of collected data. Categories and codes were created in the light of the answers given to the questions. According to the results of the study, students answered the most anthropocentric ethical approach in all questions. It can be said that this approach is more dominant in students.

Keywords

biodiversity, environmental ethics, biodiversity importance, environmental education

Kars İlinde Öğrencilerin Biyoçeşitliliğin Önemine Yönelik Çevre Etiği Anlayışları

Abstract

Dünyanın
önemli biyolojik çeşitlilik alanları arasında Türkiye öncelikli bölgeler
arasındadır. Bu nedenle Biyolojik çeşitlilik eğitimi Türkiye için bir
gerekliliktir ve bu konuya yönelik araştırmalar önem oluşturmaktadır. Öğrencilerin
biyolojik çeşitlilik gibi önemli bir çevre sorununa yönelik düşüncelerinin
temelini oluşturacak çevre etiği yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesi, bir çevre sorunu
haline gelmiş olan bu konunun çözümü için farklı bakış açıları sunacak ve çevreci
davranışları etkileyecektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrencilerin biyolojik çeşitliliğin
önemine yönelik hangi çevre etiği yaklaşımlarına sahip olduğunu belirlemektir.
Çalışmada nitel araştırma modeli çerçevesine bulunan durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak, bir eğitim
bilimleri uzmanı ile üç alan uzmanının görüşü alınarak araştırmacı tarafından
hazırlanan açık uçlu sorudan oluşan anket formu kullanılmıştır. Toplanan
verilerin analizi için içerik analizi ve yüzde değeri hesabı yapılmıştır. Sorulara verilen
cevapların ışığında kategoriler ve kodlar oluşturulmuştur. Araştırmanın
sonuçlarına göre, tüm sorularda öğrenciler en fazla insan merkezli etik yaklaşımına
yönelik yanıt vermiştir. Bu yaklaşımın öğrenciler üzerinde daha baskın olduğu
söylenebilir.

Keywords

biyoçeşitlilik, çevre etiği, biyoçeşitliliğin önemi, çevre eğitimi

References

• Aleixandre, M. P. J., and Rodríguez, R. L. (2001). Designing a field code: environmental values in primary school. Environmental education research, 7(1): 5-22.
• Arslan, M. (1997). Environmental awareness and environmental education. Education and Life, 23-26.
• Benson, J. (2000). Environmental ethics: An introduction with readings. London: Routh-ledge.
• Brause, J. A., and Wood, D. (1993). Environmental education in the school: Creating a program that works! Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.
• Callicott, J.B., and Frodeman, R. (2009). Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philo-sophy. USA: Macmillan Reference.
• Carr, D. (2004). Moral values and the arts in environmental education: Towards an ethics of aesthetic appreciation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38 (2): 221-239.
• Davis, J. (1998). Young children, environmental education, and the future. Early Child-hood Education Journal, 26 (2), 117-123.
• Dervişoğlu, S. (2010). Value orientations for living species of university students. Hacet-tepe University Education Faculty Magazine, 39, 132-141.
• Des Jardins, J. R. (2006). Environmental Ethics: Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. (Trans. Rusen Keles). Ankara: İmge Bookstore.
• Disinger, J. F. (2001). K-12 education and the environment: Perspectives, expectations and practice. The Journal of Environ¬mental Education, 33 (1): 4-11.
• Dunlap, R.E., and Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9: 10-19.
• Ertan, B. (2004). In the 2000s, environmental ethics approaches and Turkey. Journal of Administration Sciences, 2(1): 93-108.
• Erten, S., and Aydoğdu, C. (2011). Understanding of ecocentric, anthropocentric and antipathic attitudes towards the Turkish and Azerbaijani students. Hacettepe University Education Faculty Magazine, 41, 158-169.
• Franson, N., and Garling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382.
• Gurevitz, R. (2000). Affective approaches to environmental education: Going beyond the imagined worlds of childhood? Ethics, Place and Environment, 3 (3), 253-268.
• Güneş, F., and Özba, B. (2014). Flowers of Kars. Kafkas University Publications No: 4.
• Gürbüzoğlu Yalmanci, S. (2015). Investigation of environmental ethics approaches of students in terms of various variables. Anthropologist, 21(3), 385-394.
• Inglis, J. (2008). Using human-environment theory to investigate human valuing in protected area management. Ph.D Thesis. Victoria University.
• Lynch, M. (1998). Values orientation of an environmental edu¬cation centre: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University Department of Culture and Values in Edu¬cation, Montreal.
• Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Önkal, G., and Yağanak, E. (2005). Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ahmet Cevizci (edt.). Environmental Ethics, Ankara: Babil Publishing.
• Özdemir, O. (2007). A new environmental education perspective: "Education for sustaina-ble development. Education and Science, 32 (145): 23-39.
• Özdemir, C. (2010). Biodiversity in Turkish Education System. Hacettepe University Gradu-ate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Master Thesis.
• Roberts, P., and Priest, H. (2006).Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41-45.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents ofhuman values? Journal of Social Issues,50, 19-45.
• Stake, R. E. (1996) Case Studies method in educational research. In R. M. Jaeger (Eds), Complomentary Methods for research in education, (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Ameri-can Educational Research Association.
• Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between students in recreation and park management and other departments. Environmental Education Rese-arch, 7 (1): 39-53.
• Tont, S. A. (1996). Environment and ethics. Science and Technical Magazine, 29 (343): 18-21.
• United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. (UNCED). (1992). Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: UNCED. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter36.htm(accessed 11 November 2014).
• Uygun, S. (2006). Globalization of environmental problems, ethics and education. In: S Büyükdüvenci, V Taşdelen (Edt.). Philosophy Education Art: Saffet Bilhan gift. Ankara: Hece Publishing., pp. 279-290. From <http://www.selcukuygun.com/site/wpcontent/uploads/2010/09/%C3%A7evre.pdf> (Ret-rieved March 20, 2015).
• Yörek, N., Şahin, M., and Aydın, H. (2009). Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Ani-mistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5 (4), 369-378.