Çevre Eğitiminde Farklılaştırılmış Öğretimin Çevreye Yönelik Tutum ve Bilgi Düzeylerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırma çevre eğitiminde farklılaştırılmış öğretim yönteminin (FÖY) 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin çevreye yönelik tutum (ÇYT) ve çevreye yönelik bilgilerine (ÇYB) etkisini tespit etmek için gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma 2024-2025 yılında bir devlet ortaokulunda14 haftada uygulanmıştır. Çalışma ön test-son test kontrol gruba sahip yarı deneysel desenin kullanılmasıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Uygun örnekleme yöntemi ile 6. sınıf şubelerinden kontrol (28) ve deney grubu (29) belirlenmiştir. “Çevre Tutum Ölçeği” ile “Çevre Bilgi Testi” ön, son ve izleme testi amacıyla uygulanmıştır. Kontrol grubunda çevre konuları öğrenci merkezli öğretimle, deney grubunda ise FÖY’le işlenmiştir. FÖY’ün içerik, süreç, ürün ve değerlendirme aşamalarında öğrenme düzeyi-ön bilgi-öğrenci ilgileri-öğrenme sitilleri dikkate alınarak oluşturulan öğrenci gruplarına uygun uygun farklı etkinlikler planlanmış ve uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada hem öğrenci merkezli öğretimin hem de FÖY’ün ÇYT ve ÇBT puanlarına anlamlı seviyede katkı sağladığı saptanmıştır. Ancak kontrol ve deney grubunun ÇYT ve ÇBT öntest puanları benzer düzeydeyken, deney grubunun ÇYT ve ÇBT son ve izleme testi puanları kontrol grubundan anlamlı seviyede daha yüksektir. Bu durum FÖY’ün öğrenci merkezli öğretime kıyasla ÇYT ve ÇBT düzeyinin gelişiminde daha etkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu sonuç farklı öğrenme stili-ilgi-öğrenme düzeyine göre oluşturulmuş öğrenci gruplarına uygun öğrenme etkinliklerinin uygulanarak, çevre eğitiminin esnek bir şekilde farklılaştırılmasıyla açıklanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Farklılaştırılmış öğretim
• Çevre eğitimi
• Çevreye yönelik tutum
• Çevreye yönelik bilgi

The Effect of Differentiated Instruction in Environmental Education on Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge Levels

Öz

This investigation was performed to investigate the influence of the differentiated instruction method (DIM) in environmental instruction on 6th-grade pupils’ attitudes toward the environment and environmental knowledge levels. The pretest-posttest control group quasi-experimental research was conducted over 14 weeks in 2024–2025. The students were split into a control class (n=28) and an experimental class (n=29) using the convenience sampling method. The Environmental Attitude Scale (EAS) and The Environmental Knowledge Test (EKT) were administered as pre-post-follow-up tests. Pupils in the group under control were taught the subjects on the environment using student-centered methods, while those in the experimental group using DIM. In the content-process-product-evaluation phases of the DIM, different activities were planned and implemented in accordance with the student groups formed by taking into account their learning levels, prior knowledge, student interests, and learning styles. The study found that student-centered instruction and DIM made a significant contribution to EAS and EKT scores. However, while the pretest points of the control and experiment classes were similar, the post- and follow-up test points of the experiment class were meaningfully bigger than those of the control class, showing that DIM was more effective in improving students’ environmental attitude and knowledge compared to student-centered instruction. This result can be explained by the flexible differentiation of environmental education by applying appropriate learning activities to student groups that were formed based on different learning styles, interests, and learning levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Differentiated instruction
• Environmental education
• Environmental attitude
• Environmental knowledge

Kaynakça

1. Akkaş, E. (2014). The effects of differentiated problem solving instruction on mathematical problem solving, attitudes and creative thinking of gifted and talented learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Institute of Educational Sciences, Bolu.
2. Altuntaş, M. (2022). Social studies course people, places and environments the use of differentiated teaching activities in the field of learning. Unpublished master’s thesis. Erciyes University Institute of Educational Sciences, Kayseri.
3. Am, M. A., Hadi, S., Istiyono, E., & Retnawati, H. (2023). Does differentiated instruction affect learning outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(5), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202322021
4. Aras, İ. (2018). The impact of differentiated instruction on learner motivation, behavior, and achievement in middle school reading classes. Unpublished master’s thesis. Bahçeşehir University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.
5. Aşiroğlu, A. (2016). The viewpoints of preschool teacher candidates on their self-efficiency levels in differentiated education. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(3), 948–960.
6. Atalay, Z. Ö. (2014). The effect of differentiated social studies instruction on gifted students' academic achievement, attitudes, critical thinking and creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. İstanbul University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.
7. Avcı, S., & Yüksel, A. (2018). Differentiated instruction: Theory and practice. Ankara: Nobel.
8. Ay, S., Atasoy, E., & Güleç, S. (2022, November). Determination of the concepts in the "People, Places and Environments" learning area of the 7th grade social studies textbook (according to the 2018 program). EDUCONGRESS 2022: International Education Congress Abstract Book, Antalya, 17-19 November 2022.

9. Bağrıyanık, H. M. (2020). The effect of the teaching linear equation subject with differentiate education on academic success, self-regulation strategies, motivational beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Unpublished master’s thesis. Uludağ University Institute of Educational Sciences, Bursa.
10. Bal, A. P. (2023). Assessing the impact of differentiated instruction on mathematics achievement and attitudes of secondary school learners. South African Journal of Education, 43(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v43n1a2065
11. Baltacı, A. (2018). A conceptual review of sampling methods and sample size problems in qualitative research. Journal of Bitlis Eren University Institute of Social Sciences, 7(1), 231-274.
12. Beler, Y., & Avcı, S. (2011). Tiered instruction: An effective strategy to differentiation of instruction. Ahi Evran University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(3), 109-126.
13. Buldur, A. (2018). Investigation of the effects of environmental education program supported by multimedia on children's environmental attitudes and awareness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
14. Burkett, J. A. (2013). Teacher perception on differentiated instruction and its influence on instructional practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2024). Handbook of data analysis for the social sciences. Ankara: Pegem.
16. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2024). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem.
17. Çabuk, B., Pamuk, D. K., Ahi, B., Kalburan, N. C., & Güngör, H. (2019). Environmental education and sustainability in early childhood. Ankara: Anı.
18. Camcı Erdoğan, S. (2014). The effect of differentiated science and technology instruction based on scientific creativity on gifted and talented students' achievement, attitude and creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. İstanbul University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.
19. Çoban, H. (2019). The effect of differentiated instructional design on students' mathematical reasoning skills, levels of using metacognitive learning strategies and problem solving skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Balıkesir University Institute of Social Sciences, Balıkesir.
20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Çolakoğlu, E. (2010). The place of environmental education in rights discourse and the constitutional basis of environmental education in Turkey. Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, 88, 151–171.
22. Cömert, H. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning activities related to environmental problems and its effects on students? knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Unpublished master’s thesis. İstanbul University Institute of Science, İstanbul.
23. Dal, E. (2022). The trend of differentiated teaching research: Bibliometric and content analysis. Unpublished master's thesis. Amasya University Institute of Social Sciences, Amasya.
24. Demir, S. (2013). The effects of differentiated learning on students' academic achievement, learning approaches and learning retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Yıldız Technical University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul.
25. Demir, S., & Gürol, M. (2015). The effect of differentiated learning on the retainment scores of deep and surface learners. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction 5(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2015.010
26. Durmuş, T. (2017). The effects of differentiated instruction model used in social science courses on students' success levels and attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ondokuz Mayıs University Institute of Educational Sciences, Samsun.
27. Ekinci, O. (2016). The effect of differentiated instruction on mathematical attitudes and achievements of third grade primary school learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.
28. Erten, S. (2004). What is environmental education and environmental awareness? How should environmental education be? Environment and Human Journal, 65(66), 1–13.
29. Estaiteyeh, M., & DeCoito, I. (2023). Planning for differentiated instruction: Empowering teacher candidates in STEM education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 23, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-023-00270-5
30. Faber, J. M., Glas, C. A. W., & Visscher, A. J. (2018). Differentiated instruction in a data-based decision-making context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29, 46–63.
31. Göl, B. (2021). Investigation of the effect of differentiated teaching practice on second grade students' mathematics achievement and their views on differentiated teaching practices. Unpublished master’s thesis. Giresun University Institute of Social Sciences, Giresun.
32. Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2020). Differentiated instruction strategies: One size does not fit all (M. A. Sözer, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem.
33. Gülay, A. (2021). Investigating primary school teachers’ differentiated instruction practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Trabzon University Graduate Education Institute, Trabzon.
34. Güner, Z., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2012, June). An alternative approach to preschool environmental education: Differentiated instruction. 10th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Ömer Halis Demir University, Niğde. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275580047_Okul_oncesi_Cevre_Egitimi_icin_Alternatif_Bir_Yaklasim_Farklilastirilmis_Ogretim
35. Gürgen Akıcı, B. (2023). Evaluation of differentiated instructional practices through the multiple-complementary approach. Unpublished master’s thesis. Gaziantep University Institute of Educational Sciences, Gaziantep.
36. Gürkan, E. (2019). An action research on differentiated learning activities in outdoor learning. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ege University Institute of Educational Sciences, İzmir.
37. Kalaycı, Ş. (2018). Multivariate statistical techniques with SPSS applications. Ankara: Asil.
38. Kaplan, M. (2016). The effect of the differentiated method on seventh graders' conceptual learning, scientific process skills and academic achievement in the science unit “Force and movement”. Unpublished master’s thesis. Dokuz Eylül University Institute of Educational Sciences, İzmir.
39. Kara, H. Z. (2019). The effects of different instruction used in buoyancy force and pressure unit on student success and views of students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Atatürk University Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum.
40. Karadağ, R. (2010). Implementation of differentiated instruction approach in primary education Turkish course: An action research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Anadolu University Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir.
41. Karadag, R., & Yasar, S. (2010). Effects of differentiated instruction on students’ attitudes towards Turkish courses: An action research. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1394-1399.
42. Karakaş, E. (2019). Reflections on the teaching process in accordance with the differentiated teaching approach. Unpublished master’s thesis. Trabzon University Graduate Education Institute, Trabzon.
43. Karataş, Y. (2013). The effect of differentiated mathematics teaching on achievement, creativity, attitude and academic self-concept concerning gifted and talented students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. İstanbul University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.
44. Karip, F. (2016). The effects of differentiated art instructional design on students' attitude, skills and academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
45. Kavut, B. (2024). Differentiated instruction. Journal of Turkic Civilization Studies, 5(1), 62–79.
46. Kılıç, M. (2013a). The nature of learning. In B. Yeşilyaprak (Eds.), Developmental psychology: Development, learning-teaching (pp. 166–195). Ankara: Pegem.
47. Kılıç, S. (2013b). Sampling methods. Journal of Mood Disorders, 3(1), 44-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/jmood.20130325011730
48. Koeze, P. A. (2007). Differentiated instruction: The effect on student achievement in an elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eastern Michigan University, Michigan.
49. Kök, B. (2012). The effect of differentiated geometry teaching on gifted and talented students in view of creativity, spatial ability and success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Istanbul University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
50. Kontaş, H. (2012, April). Different strategies in the education of gifted children. Paper presented at the Symposium on Gifted Children: Architects of the Future, Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ. Retrieved from https://cocukuniversitesi.aydin.edu.tr/tez/gelecegin_mimarlar.pdf
51. Korkut, Ş. (2017). The education of differentiated social studies education in accordance wi̇th integrated curriculum model in the training of intellectual gifted students. Unpublished master’s thesis. İnönü University Institute of Educational Sciences, Malatya.
52. Kula, S.S., & Karakuş, R. (2023). Analysis of the academic dissertations related to the differentiated teaching. Journal of Psycho-Social Educational Research, 3(4), 1–19.
53. Maeng, J. L., & Bell, R.L. (2015). Differentiating science instruction: Secondary science teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2065–2090.
54. Melesse, T. (2016). Differentiated instruction: perceptions, practices and challenges of primary school teachers. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v4i3.37
55. Melesse, T., & Belay, S. (2022). Differentiating instruction in primary and middle schools: Does variation in students’ learning attributes matter? Cogent Education, 9(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2105552
56. Ministry of Education. (2025). Turkey's century education model curriculum common text. Retrieved from https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/brosur/ortak_metin.pdf
57. Muthomi, M. W., & Mbugua, Z. K. (2014). Effectiveness of differentiated instruction on secondary school students' achievement in mathematics. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 4(1), 116–122.
58. Nacar Güzel, M. A., & Döş, B. (2024). A methodological analysis of research on differentiated instruction. Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research, 8(17), 1-14.
59. Onat, M., Başoğlu, M., Ayas, D., Yakut, A., & Çetin, S. (2023). The place of differential education in our country's education system frequency of application in classroom and its effects on student success. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 9(63), 2685-2699. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JOS HAS.69375
60. Özdemir, F. (2023). The effect of environmental-based STEM education on environmental citizenship, environmental attitude, and environmental citizenship knowledge levels of gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Graduate Education Institute, Bolu.
61. Özer, S. (2016). The effects of thinking-style-based differentiated instruction on achievement, attitude and retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Necmettin Erbakan University Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
62. Özer, S., & Yılmaz, E. (2018). The effect of thinking-style based differentiated instruction on achievement, attitude and retention. Kastamonu University Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.374145
63. Özkanoğlu, Ö. (2015). Early childhood teachers' views about and practices with differentiated instruction in the primary years programme. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
64. Şaldırdak, B. (2012). The effects of differentiated instruction practices on mathematics achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ankara University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
65. Senturk, C. (2018). Investigation of impacts of differentiated instruction applied in a primary school in attitudes of students towards the course. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(2), 487–505.
66. Sever, R., & Yalçınkaya, E. (2018). Environmental education. Ankara: Pegem.
67. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.
68. Taş, F., & Sırmacı, N. (2018). The effect of differentiated instructional design on students' metacognitive skills and mathematics academic achievements. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(2), 336-351. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.312251
69. Taş, F. (2013). The effect of differentiated instructional design on students' metacognitive skills and mathematics academic achievements. Unpublished master’s thesis. Atatürk University Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum.
70. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated education based on student needs. İstanbul: Sev.
71. Tomlinson, C. A. (2015). Blended learning in classrooms with gifted and talented students (S. Emir & A. Aksu, Trans.). Ankara: Anı.
72. Tüfekçi, Z. (2018). The effect of differentiated instructional design on learning products in science education: Our body recognition unit. Unpublished master’s thesis. Cumhuriyet University Institute of Educational Sciences, Sivas.
73. Türegün Çoban, B. (2020). The effects of differentiated English language instruction on 7th grade students' academic achievement, higher-order thinking and problem solving skills. Unpublished master’s thesis. İnönü University Institute of Educational Sciences, Malatya.
74. Uğurel, E. (2018). The effect of differentiated instruction on learning processes in teaching of electricity subject. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Atatürk University Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum.
75. Uzun, A. (2022). Opinions of gifted students on differentiated instructional activities in social studies course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
76. Wan, S. W. Y. (2017). Differentiated instruction: Are Hong Kong in service teachers ready? Teachers and Teaching, 23(3), 284 311.
77. Yabaş, D. (2008). The effects of differentiated instructional design on students? self-efficacy beliefs, metacognitive skills and academic achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis. Yıldız Technical University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
78. Yabaş, D., & Altun, M. (2009). The effects of differentiated instructional design on students’ self-efficacy beliefs, metacognitive skills and academic achievement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education Faculty, 37, 201–214.
79. Yaprakgül, B. (2019). The effect of different instruction applied in physics course on students' academic achievements and classroom management. Unpublished master’s thesis. Atatürk University Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum.
80. Yıldız, S. (2017). Sampling problem in social sciences: A holistic view to the sampling theory from quantitative and qualitative paradigms. The Journal of Kesit Academy, 3(11), 421-442.
81. Yücel, E. Ö., & Özkan, M. (2014). Development of environmental attitudes scale for secondary school students. Uludağ University Faculty of Education Journal, 27(1), 27-48.