COGNITIVE PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE TEACHER’S CANDIDATES REGARDING NOISE POLLUTION

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, araştırmaya katılan fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre eğitimi dersi kapsamında işlenen “gürültü kirliliği” kavramına ilişkin bilişsel algılarını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmaya 2021-2022 Eğitim Öğretim yılında Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenliği bölümünde öğrenim gören toplam 60 üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi katılmıştır. Bu çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenoloji deseni kullanılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel algılarını belirlemek için veri toplama aracı olarak kontrollü kelime ilişkilendirme testi ile çizim tekniği bir arada kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular ışığında fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının gürültü kaynaklarına ve insan sağlığına etkilerine yönelik daha çok kavram ürettikleri ancak gürültü kirliliğinin azaltılması ya da önlenmesi konusu üzerinde ise pek fazla durmadıkları görülmüştür. Yalnızca iki öğretmen adayı “ses yalıtımı” yanıtını vermiş ve bu yanıtı çizdiği çizimde de göstermiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının yapmış oldukları çizimler ile kelime ilişkilendirme testinden elde edilen veriler birbirleriyle örtüşmektedir. Ancak öğretmen adaylarının bu çevre sorunu karşısında duyarlılıklarının zayıf olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gürültü Kirliliği
• Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adayları
• Fenomenoloji
• Çizim
• Kontrollü Kelime İlişkilendirme Testi

COGNITIVE PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE TEACHERS CANDIDATES REGARDING NOISE POLLUTION

Öz

The aim of this research is to reveal the cognitive perceptions of the science teacher candidates participating in the research about the concept of “noise pollution”, which is taught within the scope of the environmental education course Totally 60 third and fourth grade students, who study the department of Science Education Teaching in Hatay Mustafa Kemal University in 2021-2022 Academic Year participated in this research. In this research, phenomenology design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used. Controlled word association test and drawing technique were used together as data collection tool to determine the cognitive perceptions of science teacher candidates. In the light of the findings obtained from the research, it was seen that science teacher candidates produced more concepts about noise sources and their effects on human health, but they did not dwell much on the issue of reducing or preventing noise pollution. Only two science teacher candidates gave the answer “sound insulation” and showed this answer in the drawing they drew. The drawings made by the science teacher candidates and the data obtained from the word association test overlap with each other. However, it was observed that the science teacher candidates’ sensitivity to this environmental problem was insufficient.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Noise Pollution
• Science Teacher Candidates
• Phenomenology
• Drawing
• Controlled Word Association Test

Kaynakça

1. Akan, Z., Yılmaz A., Özdemir, O. & Korpınar, M. A. (2012). Noise pollution, psychiatric symptoms and quality of life: Noise problem in the east region of Turkey. Annals of Medical Research,, 19(2), 75-81. DOI: 10.7247/jiumf.19.2.3
2. Bahar, M. & Ozatlı, S. (2003). Diagnose the cognitive structure of high school pupils at level 1 regarding the topic “the basic components of living things” with word association test. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 5(2), 75-85.
3. Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C. & Janssen S. (2014). Auditory and nonauditory effects of noise on health. Lancet, 383(9925), 1325-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61613-X
4. Brown, A.L. (1994). Exposure of the Australian population to road traffic noise, Appl Acoust, 43(2), 169-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-682X(94)90060-4
5. Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623-630. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x
6. Çerçevik, A. E., Yerel Kandemir, S., Yıldız, M. & Çelik, M. (2018). Measurement and evaluation of noise pollution caused from Bilecik provincial roads. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Science and Engineering, 18, 366-374.
7. Çokadar, H., Türkoğlu, A. & Gezer, K. (2015). Environmental problems. M. Aydoğdu and K. Gezer (Ed.). Environmental science (pp.85-96). Lisans Publication.
8. Encyclopedic Environmental Dictionary. (2001). Turkish Environment Foundation Publication.

9. Engin, A. O, Özen, Ş. & Bayoğlu, V. (2009). Some basing variables influencing the students’ school learning successes. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 1(3), 125-156.
10. Erduran Avcı, D., Demirekin, M., Hare, O., Özlü, S. & Özkan, İ. (2013). Examination of 8th grade students’ perception of environmental problems with different techniques. FEAD, 1(2), 50-66.
11. Eren, F. (2012). Analysis of perceptions of secondary school students about information technologies through word association test. (Master’s Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University). The Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
12. Georgiadou, E., Kourtidis, K. & Ziomas, I. (2004). Exploratory traffic noise measurements at five main streets of Thessaloniki, Greece, Global Nest I International Journal, 6, 53-61.
13. Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research. Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Hunashal, R.B. & Patil, Y.G. (2012). Assessment of noise pollution indices in the city of Kolhapur, India. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 37, 448-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.310
15. Kocataş, A. (2003). Ecology-Environmental biology. Ege University Publications.
16. Kurt, Konakoğlu, S. S. (2020). A study for determining the level of consciousness, awareness and sensitivity of university students on environmental ıssues: The case study of the department of urban design and landscape architecture at the Amasya University, Turkey. The Journal of Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 11(2), 130- 141. https://doi.org/10.29048/makufebed.718232.
17. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage.
18. Morillas, J. M. B., Gozalo, G. R., González, D. M., Moraga, P. A. & Vílchez-Gómez, R. (2018). Noise pollution and urban planning. Curr Pollut Rep., 4, 208-219.
19. Oğuz, D., Çakcı, I. & Kavas, S. (2011). Environmental awareness of students in higher education. SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal, 12, 34-39.
20. Onuu, M.U. (2000). Road traffic noise in Nigeria: Measurements, analysis and evaluation of nuisance, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 233, 391-405. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.1999.2832
21. Önder, S. & Gülgün, B. (2010 Noise pollution and precautions to be taken: Herbal noise curtains. Agriculture Engineering, 35, 54-64.
22. Öner, S. (2022). A qualitative study on “global environmental problems” ın mind maps of social study teachers. International Academic Social Resources Journal, 7(34), 87-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228 /ASRJOURNAL.56794
23. Özdemir Özden, D. & Özden, M. (2015). Investigation of Children’s Drawings about Environmental Issues. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 37(37), 1-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.9779/PUJE675
24. Özyonar, F. & Peker, İ. (2008). Investigation of the environmental noise pollution in Sivas city centre. Ecology 18(69), 75-80.
25. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research-Quantitative & qualitative aproaches. Sage publication
26. Ravindran, R., Rathinasamy, S. D., Samson, J. & Senthilvelan, M. (2005). Noise stress-induced brain neurotrasmitter changes and the effect of Ocimum sanctum (Linn) treatment in albino rats. J Pharmacol Sci., 98(4), 354-360. https://doi.org/10.1254/jphs.fp0050127
27. Sadık, F., Çakan, H. & Artut, K. (2011). Analysis of the environmental problems pictures of children from different socio-economical level. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 1066-1080.
28. Salomons, E. M. & Pont, M. B. (2012). Urban traffic noise and the relation to urban density, form, and traffic elasticity. Landsc. Urban Plan., 108(1), 2-16.
29. Seçgin, F., Yalvaç, G. & Çetin, T. (2010). Perceptions of 8th grade primary school students about environmental problems through cartoons. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, Antalya, Turkey, 11-13 October 2010, 391-398.
30. Sevinç, Ö. S. (2015). Environmental problems and environmental pollution. M. Z. Yıldırım and H. Genç (Ed.). Environmental education (pp.67-124). Lisans Publication.
31. Simon, J. & Burstein, P. (1985). Basic research methods in social sciences. Third edition. Random house.
32. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory prodecures and techniques. Sage.
33. Şeyihoğlu, A., Sever, R., & Özmen, F. (2018). The current world problems in the social studies and geography teacher candidates’ mind maps. Marmara Geographical Review, (37), 1-15.
34. Talas, M. (2018). Environmental pollution. R. Sever and E. Yalçınkaya (Ed.), Environmental education (pp.110-126). Pegem Academy Publishing.
35. Tang, U. W. & Wang, Z. S. (2007). Influences of urban form on traffic-induced noise and air pollution: Results from a modelling system. Environment Model Software 22, 1750-1764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.02.003
36. Tanyaş, B. (2014). Introduction to qualitative research methods: General principles and applications in psychology. Critical Psychology Bulletin, 5, 25-38.
37. Taşbaş, A., Kocabaş, E. Saf, A. Ö. & Bingöl, H. (2020). Determination of the cognitive structures of 8th grade students related to the concept of “air pollution” through word association test. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 2(2), 90-99.
38. Tsai, C. C. & Huang, C. M. (2002). Exploring student’s cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36(4), 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2002.9655827
39. The European Environment Agency (EEA), 2017. Road Traffic Remains Biggest Source of Noise Pollution in Europe. Retrieved from. http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/road-traffic-remains-biggest-source/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NoisePollution &utm_content=NoisePollution+CID_24a9ddf571cad239903cb68f54679281&utm_source=EEA%20Newsletter&utm_term=Read%20more.
40. United Nations. (1973). Report of the United Nations conference on the human environment (UNCHE). June 5 to June 16, 1972. United Nations Publication.
41. Ustaoğlu, A & Aytaç, B. (2014). Word association test. S. Baştürk (Ed.), Measurement and evaluation in education (pp.215-228). Nobel Academic Publishing.
42. Vidya Sagar, T. & Nageshwara Rao, G. (2006). Noise pollution levels in Visakhapatnam city (India). Journal of Environmental Science & Engineering 48(2), 139-142.
43. WHO (World Health Organization). (1983). El Ruido. Criterios de salud ambiental. Ginebra: 454 OPS/WHO.
44. WHO (World Health Organization). (1999). Guidelines for community noise. Geneva: WHO.
45. WHO (World Health Organization). (2004). Environmental health indicators for Europe. A pilot indicator-based report. Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
46. WHO (World Health Organization). (2009). Night noise guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
47. WHO (World Health Organization). (2011). Burden of disease from environmental noise. WHO and JRC.
48. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (10th Edition). Distinguished Publishing.
49. Zannin, P. H. T., Diniz, F. B., Calixto, A. & Barbosa, W. (2001). Environmental noise pollution in residential areas of the city of Curitiba. Acustica, 87, 625-628.
50. Zannin, P. H. T., Diniz, F. B. & Barbosa, W. (2002). Environmental noise pollution in the city of Curitiba, Brazil. Applied Acoustics, 63, 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-682X(01)00052-4