Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

An Investigation of Middle School Students’ Views on the Contributions of Dioramas to Biodiversity Education

Yıl 2022, , 136 - 147, 11.11.2022
https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1131985

Öz

Dioramas are seen as unique teaching tools for environmental education in general and biodiversity education in particular as they present realistic learning environments that can reflect the components of the biodiversity, relationships among these components and changes occur over time. The aim of this study is to examine middle school students' views on diorama supported biodiversity education. A phenomenological approach based on student experiences were employed for the study. The study group of the research consists of twenty-four 7th grade students studying during the 2021-2022 academic year. Students participated in an 8 hours experimental process included diorama supported 5E constructivist teaching model. Interviews were used as the data collection tool. The analysis of data revealed that dioramas contribute positively to biodiversity education as they enhance learning, mitigate the effects of misconceptions, increase students’ awareness to protect biodiversity and of biodiversity sustainability. Therefore, including and using dioramas in learning environments for biodiversity education can mediate learning as well as help students to benefit from a realistic environment that include living things, the ecosystems they form and the places they live in.

Destekleyen Kurum

Dicle University Scientific Research Coordinator

Proje Numarası

ZGEF.19.003

Teşekkür

We would like to thank Dicle University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit for their support.

Kaynakça

  • Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 138-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10069.
  • Assa, J. & Wolf, L. (2007). Diorama construction from a single image, Computer Graphics Forum, 26(3), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2007.01083.x.
  • Beiersdorfer, R. E.& Davis,W E. (1994). Suggestions for planning a class field trip. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 307-311.
  • Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Global biodiversity outlook 2. Retrieved Janruary 3, 2022, from https://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-en.pdf.
  • Dikmenli, M. (2010). Biology student teachers’ conceptual frameworks regarding biodiversity. Education, 19, 479-489.
  • Gayford, C. (2000). Biodiversity education: a teacher’s perspective. Environmental Education Research, 6, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/713664696.
  • Hycner, R.H.(1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8, 279-303.
  • IUCN (2020). IUCN Red List 2017–2020 Report. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://5wf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IUCN_RED_LIST_QUADRENNIAL_REPORT_2017-2020.pdf.
  • Johnson, B. & Christensen, L (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Sage.
  • Kaşıkçı, D.N., Çağıltay, K., Karakuş, T., Kurşun, E.& Ogan, C. (2014). Internet habits and safe internet use of children in Turkey and Europe. Education and Science, 39, 230-243.
  • Kassas, M. (2002). Environmental education: biodiversity. The Environmentalist, 22, 345–351. https://doi:10.1023/A:1020766914456.
  • Leakey, R.E.& Lewin, R. (1996). The sixth extinction: Biodiversity and its survival. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  • Lindemann-Matthies, P. & Bose, E. (2008). How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 36, 731-742.
  • Marandino, M., Dias Oliveira, A. & Mortensen, M.F. (2009). Discussing biodiversity in dioramas: A powerful tool to museum education. ICOM Natural History Committee Newsletter, 29, 30-36.
  • Mayer, J. (1996). Education and communication for biodiversity: Key concepts, strategies and case studies: Using the Delphi-technique to identify and prioritize concepts for biodiversity education. (D. Elcome, Ed). IUCN.
  • Meffe, G. & Carroll, R. (1997). Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates.
  • Menzel, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2006). Vorstellungen und argumentationsstrukturen von schüler(inne)n der elften jahrgangstufe zur biodiversität, deren gefährdung und erhaltung. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 12, 199-217.
  • Menzel, S.& Bogeholz, S. (2010). Values, beliefs and norms that foster chilean and german pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5, 31-49.
  • Mifsud, E. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2013, September). Children interpreting wildlife trough national history dioramas in Proceedings of Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Nicosia, CYPRUS, 2-7 September.
  • Mifsud, E. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2016, September). Learning at natural history dioramas: a model for interpreting museum biological settings in Challenges in Biology Education Research- Eleventh Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology. Karlstad, Sweden, 5-9 September.
  • Miller, J.R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20, 430-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013.
  • Miller, J.R. (2006). Restoration, reconciliation, and reconnecting with nature nearby, Biological Conservation, 127, 356-361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.021.
  • OECD (2008). Environmental outlook to 2030, OECD Publishing. https://doi:10.1787/9789264040519-en.
  • Peart, B.& Kool, R. (1998). Analysis of a natural history exhibit: Are Dioramas the answer? International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647778809515113.
  • Pohjakallio, P. (2010). Mapping environmental education approaches in finnish art education. Synnyt/Origins, 2, 67-76. https://doi.org/10.24342/9tc2-2c71.
  • Pyle, R.M. (2003). Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206-214. https://doi:10.1017/S0030605303000383.
  • Reiss, M.& Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). Dioramas as depictions of reality and opportunities for learning in biology. Curator, 54, 447-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2011.00109.x.
  • Sax, D.F.& Gaines, S.D. (2008). Species invasions and extinction: The future of native biodiversity on islands. PNAS, 105, 11490-11497. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802290105.
  • Shepardson, D. P. (2005). Student ideas: What is an environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 49-58.
  • Stern, T. (2009). An afternoon among dioramas at Yale peabody museum. In Tunnicliffe, S.D.& Scheersoi, A (Eds.), The important role of natural history dioramas in biological learning, 14-15. ICOM Natural History Committee Newsletter.
  • Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2009). Inquiry at natural history dioramas: Useful resources in science education. In Tunnicliffe, S.D. & Scheersoi, A (Eds.), The important role of natural history dioramas in biological learning, 16-12. ICOM Natural History Committee Newsletter.
  • Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Scheersoi, A. (2010). Dusty relics or essential tools for communicating biology? In Filippoupoliti, A (Eds.) Science exhibitions: Communication and evaluation. Museums ETC.
  • Tunnicliffe, S.& Reiss, M. (2000). Building a model of the environment: How the children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34, 172-178.
  • Turner, W.R., Nakamura, T. & Dinetti M. (2004). Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience, 54, 585-590.
  • Ulbrich, K. (2010). The internet software PRONAS – from ALARM to education. In Ulbrich, K., Settele, J.& Benedict, F.F (Eds.), Biodiversity in Education for Sustainable Development – Reflection on School-Research Cooperation, 17-29, Pensoft.
  • UNESCO (1977). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi (USSR), Retrieved October 20, 2021, from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/EE-Tbilisi_1977.pdf.
  • Żeber-Dzikowska, I., Chmielewski, J. & Wojciechowska, M. (2016). Ecological and environmental education in the ethical context. Ochrona Srodowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych, 27, 44-47.
  • Zhbanova, K.S., Rule, A.C. & Tallakson, D.A. (2019). Ocean underwater scene dioramas of first graders with submarine porthole views. Journal of STEM Arts, Craft, and Constructions, 4 (1), 63-82.

An Investigation of Middle School Students’ Views on the Contributions of Dioramas to Biodiversity Education

Yıl 2022, , 136 - 147, 11.11.2022
https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1131985

Öz

Dioramas are seen as unique teaching tools for environmental education in general and biodiversity education in particular as they present realistic learning environments that can reflect the components of the biodiversity, relationships among these components and changes occur over time. The aim of this study is to examine middle school students' views on diorama supported biodiversity education. A phenomenological approach based on student experiences were employed for the study. The study group of the research consists of twenty-four 7th grade students studying during the 2021-2022 academic year. Students participated in an 8 hours experimental process included diorama supported 5E constructivist teaching model. Interviews were used as the data collection tool. The analysis of data revealed that dioramas contribute positively to biodiversity education as they enhance learning, mitigate the effects of misconceptions, increase students’ awareness to protect biodiversity and of biodiversity sustainability. Therefore, including and using dioramas in learning environments for biodiversity education can mediate learning as well as help students to benefit from a realistic environment that include living things, the ecosystems they form and the places they live in.

Proje Numarası

ZGEF.19.003

Kaynakça

  • Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 138-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10069.
  • Assa, J. & Wolf, L. (2007). Diorama construction from a single image, Computer Graphics Forum, 26(3), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2007.01083.x.
  • Beiersdorfer, R. E.& Davis,W E. (1994). Suggestions for planning a class field trip. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 307-311.
  • Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Global biodiversity outlook 2. Retrieved Janruary 3, 2022, from https://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-en.pdf.
  • Dikmenli, M. (2010). Biology student teachers’ conceptual frameworks regarding biodiversity. Education, 19, 479-489.
  • Gayford, C. (2000). Biodiversity education: a teacher’s perspective. Environmental Education Research, 6, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/713664696.
  • Hycner, R.H.(1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8, 279-303.
  • IUCN (2020). IUCN Red List 2017–2020 Report. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://5wf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IUCN_RED_LIST_QUADRENNIAL_REPORT_2017-2020.pdf.
  • Johnson, B. & Christensen, L (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Sage.
  • Kaşıkçı, D.N., Çağıltay, K., Karakuş, T., Kurşun, E.& Ogan, C. (2014). Internet habits and safe internet use of children in Turkey and Europe. Education and Science, 39, 230-243.
  • Kassas, M. (2002). Environmental education: biodiversity. The Environmentalist, 22, 345–351. https://doi:10.1023/A:1020766914456.
  • Leakey, R.E.& Lewin, R. (1996). The sixth extinction: Biodiversity and its survival. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  • Lindemann-Matthies, P. & Bose, E. (2008). How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 36, 731-742.
  • Marandino, M., Dias Oliveira, A. & Mortensen, M.F. (2009). Discussing biodiversity in dioramas: A powerful tool to museum education. ICOM Natural History Committee Newsletter, 29, 30-36.
  • Mayer, J. (1996). Education and communication for biodiversity: Key concepts, strategies and case studies: Using the Delphi-technique to identify and prioritize concepts for biodiversity education. (D. Elcome, Ed). IUCN.
  • Meffe, G. & Carroll, R. (1997). Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates.
  • Menzel, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2006). Vorstellungen und argumentationsstrukturen von schüler(inne)n der elften jahrgangstufe zur biodiversität, deren gefährdung und erhaltung. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 12, 199-217.
  • Menzel, S.& Bogeholz, S. (2010). Values, beliefs and norms that foster chilean and german pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5, 31-49.
  • Mifsud, E. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2013, September). Children interpreting wildlife trough national history dioramas in Proceedings of Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Nicosia, CYPRUS, 2-7 September.
  • Mifsud, E. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2016, September). Learning at natural history dioramas: a model for interpreting museum biological settings in Challenges in Biology Education Research- Eleventh Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology. Karlstad, Sweden, 5-9 September.
  • Miller, J.R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20, 430-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013.
  • Miller, J.R. (2006). Restoration, reconciliation, and reconnecting with nature nearby, Biological Conservation, 127, 356-361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.021.
  • OECD (2008). Environmental outlook to 2030, OECD Publishing. https://doi:10.1787/9789264040519-en.
  • Peart, B.& Kool, R. (1998). Analysis of a natural history exhibit: Are Dioramas the answer? International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647778809515113.
  • Pohjakallio, P. (2010). Mapping environmental education approaches in finnish art education. Synnyt/Origins, 2, 67-76. https://doi.org/10.24342/9tc2-2c71.
  • Pyle, R.M. (2003). Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206-214. https://doi:10.1017/S0030605303000383.
  • Reiss, M.& Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). Dioramas as depictions of reality and opportunities for learning in biology. Curator, 54, 447-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2011.00109.x.
  • Sax, D.F.& Gaines, S.D. (2008). Species invasions and extinction: The future of native biodiversity on islands. PNAS, 105, 11490-11497. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802290105.
  • Shepardson, D. P. (2005). Student ideas: What is an environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 49-58.
  • Stern, T. (2009). An afternoon among dioramas at Yale peabody museum. In Tunnicliffe, S.D.& Scheersoi, A (Eds.), The important role of natural history dioramas in biological learning, 14-15. ICOM Natural History Committee Newsletter.
  • Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2009). Inquiry at natural history dioramas: Useful resources in science education. In Tunnicliffe, S.D. & Scheersoi, A (Eds.), The important role of natural history dioramas in biological learning, 16-12. ICOM Natural History Committee Newsletter.
  • Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Scheersoi, A. (2010). Dusty relics or essential tools for communicating biology? In Filippoupoliti, A (Eds.) Science exhibitions: Communication and evaluation. Museums ETC.
  • Tunnicliffe, S.& Reiss, M. (2000). Building a model of the environment: How the children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34, 172-178.
  • Turner, W.R., Nakamura, T. & Dinetti M. (2004). Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience, 54, 585-590.
  • Ulbrich, K. (2010). The internet software PRONAS – from ALARM to education. In Ulbrich, K., Settele, J.& Benedict, F.F (Eds.), Biodiversity in Education for Sustainable Development – Reflection on School-Research Cooperation, 17-29, Pensoft.
  • UNESCO (1977). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi (USSR), Retrieved October 20, 2021, from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/EE-Tbilisi_1977.pdf.
  • Żeber-Dzikowska, I., Chmielewski, J. & Wojciechowska, M. (2016). Ecological and environmental education in the ethical context. Ochrona Srodowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych, 27, 44-47.
  • Zhbanova, K.S., Rule, A.C. & Tallakson, D.A. (2019). Ocean underwater scene dioramas of first graders with submarine porthole views. Journal of STEM Arts, Craft, and Constructions, 4 (1), 63-82.
Toplam 38 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Eğitim Üzerine Çalışmalar
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Hülya Aslan Efe 0000-0002-0042-4546

Sadreddin Tusun Bu kişi benim 0000-0002-0696-4244

Ali Osman Alakuş 0000-0003-0651-9519

Rıfat Efe 0000-0002-8196-309X

Proje Numarası ZGEF.19.003
Yayımlanma Tarihi 11 Kasım 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi 16 Haziran 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022

Kaynak Göster

APA Aslan Efe, H., Tusun, S., Alakuş, A. O., Efe, R. (2022). An Investigation of Middle School Students’ Views on the Contributions of Dioramas to Biodiversity Education. International E-Journal of Educational Studies, 6(12), 136-147. https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1131985

21067   13894              13896           14842

We would like to share important news with you. International e-journal of Educational Studies indexed in EBSCO Education Full Text Database Coverage List H.W. Wilson Index since January 7th, 2020.
https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/eft-coverage.pdf

IEJES has been indexed in the Education Source Ultimate database, which is the upper version of the Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson) and Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson) database, from 2020 to the present.

https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/esu-coverage.htm

Creative Commons License


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.