Relationship Between Pre-service Teachers’ Value Orientations and Levels of Ecological Citizenship

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between pre-service teachers’ value orientations and their levels of ecological citizenship. A correlational survey model was used in the study. The sample comprised 556 pre-service teachers, selected using the cluster sampling method. Data were collected using a Personal Information Form, the Schwartz Value Survey, and the Ecological Citizenship Scale. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and hierarchical regression analysis were used for data analysis. A weak positive relationship was found between Overall Ecological Citizenship and Universalism, while weak negative relationships were identified with Hedonism, Power, and Security. Each of the values—Universalism, Stimulation, Hedonism, Power, and Security—was found to predict Overall Ecological Citizenship. Conformity, Tradition, Benevolence, Universalism, Stimulation, and Achievement were found to be positively correlated with the dimensions of ecological citizenship. Hedonism, Power, and Security were found to be negatively correlated with the dimensions of ecological citizenship. The predictors of the dimensions of ecological citizenship were Universalism, Benevolence, Achievement, Stimulation, Tradition, Conformity, Power, Hedonism, and Security. The findings of this study indicated that values make a small but significant contribution to promoting ecological citizenship. It was concluded that the values of Universalism, Benevolence, Achievement, Stimulation, Tradition, and Conformity promoted ecological citizenship and its related behaviours, while the values of Power, Hedonism, and Security reduced them.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Value orientations
• ecological citizenship
• pre-service teachers
• environmental sustainability

Destekleyen Kurum

This study was supported by TÜBİTAK BİDEB within the scope of the 2209-A University Student Research Projects Support Program.

Proje Numarası

1919B012331709

Etik Beyan

Permission was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University with the decision numbered 2024/10-21 and dated 07/05/2024.

Teşekkür

We would like to express our gratitude to TÜBİTAK.

Öğretmen Adaylarının Değer Yönelimleri ile Ekolojik Vatandaşlık Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının değer yönelimleri ile ekolojik vatandaşlık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemektir. Çalışmada ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Küme örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak belirlenen 556 öğretmen adayı örneklemi oluşturmuştur. Veriler Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Schwartz Değerler Ölçeği ve Ekolojik Vatandaşlık Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistik, korelasyon analizi ve hiyerarşik regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Toplam Ekolojik Vatandaşlık ile Evrensellik arasında pozitif yönlü düşük ilişki; Hazcılık, Güç ve Güvenlik arasında negatif yönlü düşük ilişki bulunmuştur. Evrensellik, Uyarılım, Hazcılık, Güç ve Güvenlik değerlerinin her biri Toplam Ekolojik Vatandaşlığı yordamıştır. Uyma, Geleneksellik, İyilikseverlik, Evrensellik, Uyarılım ve Başarı değerlerinin ekolojik vatandaşlığın boyutlarıyla pozitif ilişkide olduğu bulunmuştur. Hazcılık, Güç ve Güvenlik değerlerinin ekolojik vatandaşlığın boyutlarıyla negatif ilişkide olduğu bulunmuştur. Ekolojik vatandaşlık boyutlarının yordayıcı değerleri Evrensellik, İyilikseverlik, Başarı, Uyarılım, Geleneksellik, Uyma, Güç, Hazcılık ve Güvenlik’tir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, ekolojik vatandaşlığı teşvik etmede değerlerin katkısının küçük de olsa önemli olduğunu göstermiştir. Evrensellik, İyilikseverlik, Başarı, Uyarılım, Geleneksellik, Uyma değerlerinin ekolojik vatandaşlık ve boyutlarındaki davranışları arttırdığı; Güç, Hazcılık, Güvenlik değerlerinin azalttığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Değer yönelimi
• ekolojik vatandaşlık
• öğretmen adayı
• çevresel sürdürülebilirlik

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma TÜBİTAK BİDEB tarafından 2209-A Üniversite Öğrenci Araştırma Projeleri Destekleme Programı kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Proje Numarası

1919B012331709

Etik Beyan

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu’nun 07/05/2024 tarih ve 2024/10-21 sayılı kararıyla izin alınmıştır.

Teşekkür

TÜBİTAK'a teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Kaynakça

1. Akdeniz, Ş. N., & Durmaz, A. (2024). Investigation of social studies teacher candidates' ecological citizenship levels in terms of different variables. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of ISS, 14(4), 2314-2326. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1519439
2. Altın, M., & Akcanca, N. (2023). Students' self-efficacy regarding environmental education and the relationship between their perceptions of environmental ethics awareness and their ecological citizenship. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 9(2), 179-197. https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2023.09.02.003
3. Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., & Roccas, S. (2020). Values at work: The impact of personal values in organisations. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 230-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12181
4. Asilsoy, B., & Oktay, D. (2018). Exploring environmental behaviour as the major determinant of ecological citizenship. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, 765-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.036
5. Barak, N. (2020) Ecological city-zenship. Environmental Politics, 29(3), 479-499, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1660504
6. Binawan, A. L. (2023). New concepts of ecological-social justice: A micro-optic reflection on ecological citizenship education in Indonesia. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 14(1), 143-168.
7. Bouman, T., Steg, L., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2018). Measuring values in environmental research: A test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

9. Curtin, D. (2002). Ecological citizenship. E. F. Isı and B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of citizenship studies, (pp. 293-304). Sage.
10. Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford University.
11. Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15, 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.344
12. Durgun, G. (2022). Analysis of the relationship between the environmental ethics approach and ecological citizenship levels of elemantary school teachers (Thesis No. 738786) [Master thesis, Fırat University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
13. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.
14. Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7), 1127-1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381429
15. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
16. Gough, A. (2009, March 24-26). Not for want of trying: Strategies for re-orienting teacher education for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). [Conference presentation]. 12th UNESCO-APEID International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
17. Green, C., Medina-Jerez, W., & Bryant, C. (2016). Cultivating environmental citizenship in teacher education, Teaching Education, 27(2), 117-135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1043121
18. Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.004
19. Humphreys, D. (2009). Environmental and ecological citizenship in civil society. The International Spectator, 44(1), 171-183, https://doi.org/10.1080/03932720802693101
20. İnal, Ö. (2024). Investigation of primary school teacher candidates' environmental identities and value orientations (Thesis No. 882314) [Master thesis, İnönü University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
21. İnce, A., & Bilgiç, F. (2021). Examining the value orientation of teacher candidates within the framework of the general objectives of national education. PESA International Journal of Social Studies, 7(2), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8385.2021.7.2.01
22. Jagers, S. C. (2009). In search of the ecological citizen. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802624751
23. Jagers, S. C., & Matti, S. (2010). Ecological citizens: Identifying values and beliefs that support individual environmental responsibility among Swedes. Sustainability, 2(4), 1055-1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2041055
24. Jahangiri, J., & Zarei, A. (2016). The relationship between value orientation and attitudes toward the environment case study: Shiraz University students. International Journal of Humanıtıes and Cultural Studıes, 3(2), 850-861.
25. Kahyaoğlu, M., & Kırıktaş, H. (2015). The relationship between personal values and environmental behaviours and thoughts of high school students. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (32), 88-105.
26. Karagöz, Y. (2019). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği [Scientific research methods and publication ethics]. Nobel.
27. Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Nobel.
28. Karatekin, K. (2019). Model reivew related to the effects of teachers’ levels of ecological citizenship. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 46-61.
29. Karatekin, K., Salman, M., & Uysal, C. (2019). The comparison of ecological citizenship levels of the candidate teachers. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(4), 1747-1756. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3295
30. Karatekin, K., & Uysal, C. (2018). Ecological citizenship scale development study. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 8(2), 82-104.
31. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596281006
32. Kaya Aydın, M. (2022). Examination of the relationship between the environmental literacy levels and ecological citizenship levels of preschool teachers (Thesis No. 769688) [Master thesis, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
33. Kenis, A. (2016). Ecological citizenship and democracy: Communitarian versus agonistic perspectives. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 949-970. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1203524
34. Kılıç, N., & Vatansever, Ç. (2017). Çalışanların “yeşil” tutum ve davranışları ile yaşam değerleri ilişkisi [The relationship between employees' "green" attitudes and behaviors and their life values]. T. Turgut and M. Çinko (Eds.), Değerli insana “değer”li çalışmalar: Yaşam ve çalışma değerleri üzerine araştırmalar ["Valuable" studies for valuable people: Research on life and work values] (pp. 1-32). Beta.
35. Kıral Uçar, G. (2020). Value orientations and pro-environmental behaviour. Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 21(39), 801-822. https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.654035
36. Light, A. (2006). Ecological citizenship: The democratic promise of restoration. R. H. Platt (Ed.), The humane metropolis: People and nature in the 21st-century city (pp. 169-181). University of Massachusetts Press.
37. Mattei, P. (2023). Working with schools and the case of ecological citizenship. Democratizing Science. (pp. 62-74). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529223972.ch005
38. Melo-Escrihuela, C. (2008). Promoting ecological citizenship: Rights, duties and political agency. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 7(2), 113-134.
39. Mızık, E. T., & Yiğit Avdan, Z. (2020). The cornerstone of sustainability: Ecological footprint. Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment, 6(2), 451-467, https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.630825
40. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391602237244
41. Özdemir Özden, D., & Öztürk, C. (2019). The elementary students as an environmental citizen: Investigation of the sixth, seventh and eighth grade students’ environmentally responsible citizen behaviors. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences], 20 (Special Issue), 363-392. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.548519
42. Pallant, J. (2017). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. (Trans. S. Balcı ve B. Ahi). Anı. (Original publication date 2015).
43. Primc, K., Ogorevc, M., Slabe-Erker, R., Bartolj, T., & Murovec, N. (2021). How does Schwartz's theory of human values affect the proenvironmental behavior model? Baltic Journal of Management, 16(2), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-08-2020-0276
44. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 517-546. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821 125100
45. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
46. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
47. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.
48. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182.
49. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
50. Schwartz, S. H. (2014). National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value differences and cultural distance. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (2, pp. 547–586). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53776-8.00020-9
51. Schwartz, S. H. (2021). A repository of Schwartz value scales with instructions and an introduction. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1173
52. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.
53. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519-542.
54. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010
55. Seyfang, G. (2005). Shopping for sustainability: Can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship? Environmental Politics, 14(2), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500055209
56. Sezer, A., & Öner Armağan, F. (2023). Determination of the ecological behavior level of pre-service science teachers. Cappadocia Journal of Education, 4(2), 117-133.
57. Steg, L., & De Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81-92). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005
58. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
59. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
60. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65-84.
61. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational Psychological Measurement, 58 (6), 984–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006008
62. Torkar, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). Environmental values and environmental concern. Environmental Education Research, 25(10), 1570-1581. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1649367
63. Tuncay-Yüksel, B., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Zeidler, D. L. (2023). Epistemological beliefs and values as predictors of preservice science teachers' environmental moral reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(9), 2111–2144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21889
64. Usmi, R., & Murdiono, M. (2021). Ecological citizenship in textbooks on pancasila and citizenship education subjects at the secondary education level. Journal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 18(2), 242-256. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v18i2.38885
65. Uysal, C., & Karatekin, K. (2022). The identification of the ecological citizenship levels of the classroom teacher candidates. Turkish Scientific Researches Journal, 7(2), 371-392.
66. Ünal, E. (2019). The investigation of ecological citizenship levels of teacher candidates. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(2), 329-334. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2019.52.329.334
67. Valencia Sáiz, A. (2005). Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and ecological citizenship. Environmental Politics, 14(2), 163-178, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500054848
68. Yalmancı, S. (2009). Investigation of preservice teachers? tendency of value with regard to several variables (Thesis No. 228651) [Master thesis, Zonguldak Karaelmas University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
69. Yeboah, F. K., & Kaplowitz, M. D. (2016). Explaining energy conservation and environmental citizenship behaviors using the value-belief-norm framework. Human Ecology Review, 22(2), 137-159.
70. Yılmaz, M., Karakaya, F., Cimen, O., & Adıguzel, M. (2019). Investigation of ecological citizenship levels pre-service science teachers’. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 13(30), 98-113. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.218.6