A Comparative Investigation of Environmental Literacy Dimensions in Science Curricula of Several Countries
Abstract
Environmental education is necessary to prevent environmental problems. It is useful to analyze the curricula in order to understand the importance given to environmental education. In this study, it was aimed to examine the learning outcomes in Türkiye, Canada (Ontario), Australia, USA (Massachusetts) and England primary science curricula in terms of environmental education and to analyze and compare them according to the dimensions of environmental literacy which are formed knowledge, cognitive skills, affect and behavior. This study was a qualitative study, and the data were collected through document analysis and analyzed through content analysis. In the comparisons made according to the number of environmental outcomes, it was observed that the highest number of outcomes was present in the curriculum of Canada, while the lowest number of outcomes was present in the curriculum of England. All dimensions were found in all curricula except the Science and Technology Curriculum in England, but not all dimensions were equally included in the curricula. In England's curriculum, had no outcomes related to the behavior dimension. The common result was that in all of the curricula, the outcomes in the cognitive skills dimension are more common, while the outcomes in the affective and behavioral dimensions are more limited.
Keywords
environment, environmental literacy, science curriculum, outcomes, comparison of curriculum
References
- Akçay, S. (2024). Comparison of Turkish science curricula and British science curriculum in terms of environmental education. Journal of Human and Social Sciences Research, 13(5), 1852-1872.
- Aynal, S. (2012). Comparative Education Identity, (Ed: Aynal, S.), Reflections on comparative education. (1st Edition), Pegem Academy: Ankara. p. 217.
- Barak, B., & Gönençgil, B. (2020). A comparison of middle school curricula in the world and in Turkey based on the climate change education approach. Journal of Geography, (40), 187–201.
- Baykal, H. & Baykal, T. (2008). Environmental problems in a globalizing world. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 5(9).
- Bekdaş, U. (2019). An analysis of 'environmental learning outcomes in the 2018 middle and high school curricula of the Ministry of National Education (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
- Bozkurt, O., & Cansüngü Koray, Ö. (2002). Misconceptions of primary school students regarding the greenhouse effect in environmental education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 67-73.
- Brown, A. S. & Brown, L. L. (2007). What Are Science and Math Test Scores Really Telling Us? The Ben of Tau Beta Pi, 13-17.
- Carter, R. L., & Simmons, B. (2010). The history and philosophy of environmental education. The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education, 3-16.
- Cebesoy, Ü. B. & Dönmez Şahin, M. (2010). A comparative analysis of the lower secondary science and technology curriculum in terms of environmental education. Journal of Biological Sciences Research, 3(2), 159-168.
- Derman, M. (2015). A comparative analysis of environmental education in primary and secondary science curricula of different countries (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum.
