Year 2017, Volume 13 , Issue 3, Pages 1106 - 1129 2017-12-29

Okul Öncesi Dönem Çocuklarının Doğaya Yakınlık (Biyofili) Seviyelerinin Araştırılması

Simge YILMAZ [1] , Refika OLGAN [2]


Bu çalışmanın amacı okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarına devam eden 60-66 aylık çocuklarının doğaya yakınlık seviyelerini (biyofili) belirlemek ve bu çocukların doğa ile ilgili uyaranlara olumlu (biyofilik) ya da olumsuz (biyofobik) tepkilerinin nedenlerini araştırmaktır. Bu çalışmanın bir diğer amacı ise çocukların biyofili seviyelerinin devam ettikleri okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarının bahçelerinin doğal elementleri içerme düzeylerine ve cinsiyetlerine göre değişiklik gösterip göstermediğini araştırmaktır. Çalışmanın örneklemi Ankara İl’inin Çankaya ilçesinde yer alan dört farklı devlet okulundan seçilen 105 çocuktan oluşmuştur. Çalışmanın alt örneklemini ise temel örneklem grubundan rastgele örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak seçilen 20 çocuk oluşturmaktadır. Katılımcıların doğaya yakınlık seviyelerini ölçmek amacıyla 22 maddeden oluşan ‘Çocuklar için Biyofili Ölçeği’ kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, çocukların biyofili seviyelerinin devam ettikleri okul öncesi eğitim kurumuna (okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarının bahçelerinin doğal elementleri içerme düzeyleri) ve cinsiyetlerine göre farklılık göstermediğini ve araştırmaya katılan tüm çocukların biyofili seviyelerinin yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Çocukların biyofilik ya da biyofobik yanıtlarının ortak nedenleri incelendiğinde, öne çıkan en önemli faktörün kültürün etkisi olduğu belirlenmiştir. Annelerin çocukların doğal uyaranlara verdiği olumlu ya da olumsuz tepkiler üzerinde etkili bir yere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu nedenle, ilerde yapılacak çalışmaların çocukların biyofilik ya da biyofobik yanıtlarında etkili olabileceği düşünülerek, annelerin demografik özellikleri (yaş, eğitim seviyesi, dışarda geçirdiği zaman, çocukluğunu geçirtiği yaşam alanı vb.) dikkate alınarak planlanması önerilebilir. Ayrıca, farklı kültürlerde büyüyen çocukların biyofili seviyelerinin araştırılması da önerilebilir. 
biyofili, biyofobi, doğaya yakınlık, okul öncesi eğitim
  • Ahmetoğlu, E. (2017). The contributions of familial and environmental factors to children’s connection with nature and outdoor activities. Early Child Development and Care, 1-11.
  • Akoumianaki-Ioannidou, A., Paraskevopoulou, A. T., & Tachou, V. (2016). School grounds as a resource of green space to increase child-plant contact. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 375-386.
  • Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: John Wiley.Bekoff, M., & Goodall, J. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy--and why they matter. Novato, CA: New World Library.
  • Bentsen, P., Mygind, E., & Randrup, T. B. (2009). Towards an understanding of udeskole: Education outside the classroom in a Danish context. Education 3–13, 37(1), 29-44.
  • Brussoni, M., Olsen, L. L., Pike, I., & Sleet, D. A. (2012). Risky play and children’s safety: Balancing priorities for optimal child development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 3134-3148.
  • Castonguay, G., & Jutras, S. (2009). Children's appreciation of outdoor places in a poor neighborhood. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 101-109.
  • Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.
  • Chawla, L. (2006). Learning to love the natural world enough to protect it. Barn, 2, 57-78.
  • Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A theoretical framework for empirical results. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144-170.
  • Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31-49.
  • Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(1), 68-80.
  • Cook, D. M., & Mineka, S. (1989). Observational conditioning of fear to fear-relevant verus fear-irrelevant stimuli in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 448-459.
  • Cook, D. M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 372-389.
  • Coss, R. G., & Charles, E. P. (2004). The role of evolutionary hypotheses in psychological research: Instincts, affordances, and relic sex differences, Ecological Psychology, 16, 199-236.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Dal Santo, J. A., Goodman, R. M., Glik, D., & Jackson, K. (2004). Childhood unintentional injuries: Factors predicting injury risk among preschoolers. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29(4), 273-283.
  • Dubos, R. (1968). So human an animal. New York: Charles Scribners & Sons.
  • Dyment, J. E. (2005) Gaining ground: The power and potential of green school grounds in the Toronto district school board. Toronto, Ontario: Evergreen. Evans, J. (2000). Where do children play? Children Australia, 25(2), 35-40.
  • Dyment, J., & O'Connell, T. S. (2013). The impact of playground design on play choices and behaviors of pre-school children. Children's Geographies, 11(3), 263-280.
  • Engleson, D. C., & Yockers, D. H. (1994). A guide to curriculum planning in environmental education. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
  • Gardner, G., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd. ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Gundersen, V., Frivold, L. H., Myking, T., & Oyen, B. H. (2006). Management of urban recreational woodlands: The case of Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(2), 73-82.
  • Iltis, H. H., Loucks, O. L., & Andrews, P. (1970). Criteria for an optimum human environment. Science and Public Affairs-Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 26(1), 2-6.
  • Kabadayı, A. (2016). Teachers’ metaphorical images on “counting jingle–it–playground” in children’s plays of Turkish culture: Türk kültüründeki çocuk oyunlarında “saymaca-ebe-oyun alanı” üzerine öğretmen metaforları. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(2), 3252-3265.
  • Kahn, P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children's affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17(1), 1-61.
  • Kahn Jr, P. H. (2002). Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, 93-116.
  • Ertürk-Kara, G., Aydos, E. H., & Aydin, Ö. (2015). Changing preschool children's attitudes into behavior towards selected environmental issues: An action research study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(1), 46-63.
  • Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In. S. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42-69). Washington D.C.: Island Press.
  • Kellert, S. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  • Kellert, S. R. (2012). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Island press.
  • Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
  • Little, H. (2010). Relationship between parents’ beliefs and their responses to children’s risk-taking behavior during outdoor play. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(3), 315-330.
  • Louv, R. (2005, 2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.
  • Lucas, A. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2010). Where do children choose to play on the school ground? The influence of green design. Education 3–13, 38(2), 177-189.
  • Martensson, F., Jansson, M., Johansson, M., Raustorp, A., Kylin, M., & Boldemann, C. (2014). The role of greenery for physical activity play at school grounds. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 103-113.
  • Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503-515.
  • McNeish, D. & Roberts, H. (1995). Playing it safe: Today’s children at pIay. Barnardo’s: Essex.
  • Mineka, S., Cook, M. D., Keir, R. (1984). Observational Conditioning of snake fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 355-372.
  • Moore, R. C, & Marcus, C. C. (2008). Healthy planet, healthy children: Designing nature into the daily spaces of childhood. In S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 153- 203). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.
  • Norodahl, K., & Einarsdottir, J. (2015). Children’s views and preferences regarding their outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 15(2), 152-167.
  • Ogelman, H. G. & Güngör, H. (2015). Türkiye’deki okul öncesi dönem çevre eğitimi çalışmalarının incelenmesi: 2000-2014 yılları arasındaki tezlerin ve makalelerin incelenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(32), 180-194.
  • Orians, G. H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics, In E. C. Penning-Rowsell, & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meanings and values (pp. 3-22). London: Allen and Unwin.
  • Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in mind. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  • Rice, C. S., & Torquati, J. C. (2013). Assessing connections between young children's affinity for nature and their experiences in natural outdoor settings in preschools. Children Youth and Environments, 23(2), 78-102.
  • Rivkin, M. S. (1995). The great outdoors: Restoring children’s rights to play outside. Washington D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Rosenow, N. (2008). Learning to love the earth and each other. Young Children, 63(1), 10-13.
  • Samways, M. J. (2007). Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodiversity Conservation, 16, 1995-1997.
  • Sandseter, E. B. H. (2007). Categorising risky play—how can we identify risk‐ taking in children's play?. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 237-252.
  • Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of features in the play environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 439-446.
  • Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.
  • Scott, G. W., Boyd, M., Scott, L., & Colquhoun, D. (2015). Barriers to biological fieldwork: What really prevents teaching out of doors? Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 165-178.
  • Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 903-906.
  • Sobel, D. (2008). Children and nature: Design principles for educators. Portland ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
  • Stokes, D. L. (2006). Conservators of experience. Bioscience, 56, 6–7.
  • Thompson, J. E., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Natural connections: Children, nature, and social-emotional development. Exchange, 178, 46-49.
  • Tilbury, D. (1994). The critical learning years for environmental education. In R.A. Wilson R.A. (Ed.). Environmental education at the early childhood level (pp.11-13), Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.
  • Tunstall, S., Tapsell, S., & House, M. (2004). Children's perceptions of river landscapes and play: What children's photographs reveal. Landscape Research, 29(2), 181-204.
  • Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T., & Dinetti, M. (2004). Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience, 54(6), 585-590.
  • Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The Biophilia Hypothesis, 7, 73-137.
  • Uyar, R. Ö., & Genç, M. M. Y. (2016). The ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes of preschool children related to different environments. Okul öncesi dönem çocukların farklı çevre konularına yönelik ekosantrik ve antroposentrik tutumları. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4579-4594.
  • Valentine, G., & McKendrck, J. (1997). Children's outdoor play: exploring parental concerns about children's safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum, 28(2), 219-235.
  • Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1-24.
  • White, R. (2004). Young children's relationship with nature: Its importance to children's development & the earth's future. White Hutchinson Leisure & Learning Group, 1-9.
  • White, R., & Stoecklin, V. (1998). Children's outdoor play & learning environments: Returning to nature. 11 Mayıs 2017 tarihinde https://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/outdoor.shtml adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Becker, E. (2001). Prairie farmers reap conservation's rewards. The New York Times. 27 Ağustos 2001 tarihinde http: //www.nytimes.com. adresinden alınmıştır. Willenberg, L. J., Ashbolt, R., Holland, D., Gibbs, L., MacDougall, C., Garrard, J., & Waters, E. (2009). Increasing school playground physical activity: A mixed methods study combining environmental measures and children's perspectives. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13(2), 210-216.
  • Wilson, O. E. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. Kellert, & E.O. Wilson (Eds.). The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31-44). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  • Yılmaz, S. Olgan, R. & Öztürk-Yılmaztekin, E. (2016). Nature Connectedness and Landscape Preferences of Turkish Preservice Preschool Teachers. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 2016, 11(15), 8120-8142.
  • Yılmaz, S. (2017). Investigation of 5-year-old preschool children’s biophilia and children’s and their mothers’ outdoor setting preferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Subjects Education, Scientific Disciplines
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Author: Simge YILMAZ
Institution: MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Author: Refika OLGAN

Dates

Publication Date : December 29, 2017

APA Yılmaz, S , Olgan, R . (2017). Okul Öncesi Dönem Çocuklarının Doğaya Yakınlık (Biyofili) Seviyelerinin Araştırılması . Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 13 (3) , 1106-1129 . DOI: 10.17860/mersinefd.328340