Improving ecological footprint awareness of primary school students
Authors
-
Alperen GeldiDepartment of Elementary Education, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
-
Ayşe CoşkunDepartment of Elementary Education, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
-
Hamdi KarakaşDepartment of Elementary Education, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
DOI:
10.58583/EM.3.2.6Keywords:
Ecological footprint, Environment, Primary school studentsAbstract
The aim of this study is to improve primary school students' ecological footprint awareness through ecological footprint-based activities. The research was conducted in accordance with the quantitative research method and a quasi-experimental design with pre-post test experimental-control group was used in the research. The criterion sampling method was used to determine the study group for the experimental process, and 26 students (N experimental=13; N control=13) studying in the fourth grade of a public school in the Central Anatolia Region were included in the study. In the study, the Ecological Footprint Awareness Scale was applied as pretest-posttest. The process took place in science classes in both groups. While the courses were curriculum-based in the control group, ecological footprint-based activities were organized in the experimental group. The data were analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and dependent groups t-test, and the effect size ([ή2]) was calculated according to the variances. As a result of the research, when the ecological footprint awareness pre-test mean scores of primary school students were controlled, it was concluded that there was a significant difference between the ecological footprint awareness post-test mean scores of primary school students in which the activity process took place, and the ecological footprint awareness post-test mean scores of primary school students in which the activities did not take place. It was evaluated that 45% of the variance related to the post-test mean scores was due to the activity process applied. While teaching courses with ecological footprint-based activities applied in the experimental group significantly increased the mean scores of primary school students' ecological footprint awareness with a medium effect, teaching curriculum-based courses did not significantly increase the mean scores of primary school students' ecological footprint awareness attitude. It should be considered important to present topics such as ecological footprint, carbon footprint or water footprint calculations to students depending on the concept of sustainability to be integrated into primary school curriculum programs and to focus on in-class and out-of-class activities.
Downloads
References
Akten, M. & Akyol, A. (2018). Determination of environmental perceptions and awareness towards reducing carbon footprint. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16(4), 5249-5267. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1604_52495267
Aydın, B. (2007). İlköğretim çocuğunun gelişim özellikleri [Developmental characteristics of the primary school child]. In İlköğretim Çağına Genel Bir Bakış [An overview of primary school age], A. Oktay (Ed.), (pp: 13-27), Morpa.
Balcı, A. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler [Research methods, techniques and principles in social sciences]. PegemA.
Biekša, K. (2016). The evaluation of cereal farms using ecological footprint method. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 38(3), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2016.16
Blatchford, J. S., & Smith, K. C., ve Pramling-Samuelsson, I. (2010). Education for sustainable development in the early years. World Organization For Early Childhood Education.
Bond, S. (2003). Ecological footprinting: Comparing nature’s supply with human demand. Ecological footprinting. WWF Cymru.
Brooks, S., Jabour, J., & Bergstrom, D. (2018). What is ‘footprint’ in antarctica: proposing a set of definitions. Antarctic Science, 30(4), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954102018000172
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (21th ed.). Pegem. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289
Coşkun, Ç. I. & Sarıkaya, R. (2014). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ekolojik ayak izi farkındalık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Investigation of ecological foot print levels of classrom teacher candidates]. Turkish Studies, 9(5), 1761-1787. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6598
Cordero, E., Todd, A. & Abellera, D. (2008). Climate change education and the ecological footprint. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(6), 865-872. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007bams2432.1
Çapık, C. (2014). İstatistiksel güç analizi ve hemşirelik araştırmalarında kullanımı: Temel bilgiler [Statistical power analysis and it’s use in nursing studies: Basic information]. Anatolian Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 17(4), 268-274.
Edwards, A. R. (2005). The sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift. New Society Publishers.
Güngör, H. & Cevher-Kalburan, F. N. (2022). Okul öncesi eğitim kurumu çalışanlarının ekolojik ayak izi farkındalık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Determining the ecological footprint awareness levels of preschool employees]. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports ve Science Education (IJTASE), 11(1), 17-26.
Gürses, A. (2010). Geleneksel öğretim nedir? Ne değildir [What is traditional teaching? What is not]. Araştırma Projesi Eğitim Çalıştayı [Research Project Training Workshop], Çanakkale.
Hirsh, J. (2016). Research in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 10(1), 199-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215625554
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (Trans. ed. S. B. Demir). Eğiten Kitap.
Karakaş H., Doğan A. & Sarıkaya R. (2016). Etkinlik temelli eğitimin üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin ekolojik ayak izi farkındalığına etkisi [Effect of activity-based training on ecological footprint awareness of gifted students]. Turkish Studies, 11(3), 1365-1386. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8960
Keleş, Ö., Uzun, N. & Özsoy, S. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının ekolojik ayak izlerinin hesaplanması ve değerlendirilmesi [Measuring and Evaluating Pre-Service Teachers’ Ecological Footprints]. Ege Journal of Education, 9(2), 1-14.
Khumalo, S. (2019). The role of transformational school leadership in promoting teacher commitment: an antecedent for sustainable development in South Africa. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 10(2), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2019-0015
Liu, X., Fu, J., Jiang, D., Luo, J., Sun, C., Liu, H., … & Wang, X. (2018). Improvement of ecological footprint model in national nature reserve based on net primary production (NPP). Sustainability, 11(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010002
Majid, M. & Zaman, M. (2018). Gis-based regression analysis of the relationship between ecological footprint and economic development of selected countries. Planning Malaysia, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.21837/pmjournal.v16.i7.513
McNichol, H., Davis, J. M. & O’Brien, K. R. (2011). An ecological footprint for an early learning center: Identifying opportunities for early childhood sustainability education through interdisciplinary research. Environmental Education Research, 17(5), 689-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.572161
MEB (2018). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Primary school science course (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum]. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, MoNE.
Munkebye, E., Scheie, E., Gabrielsen, A., Jordet, A., Misund, S., Nergård, T., … & Øyehaug, A. (2020). Interdisciplinary primary school curriculum units for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 795-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1750568
Pullu, E. (2023). The self-efficacy perception for environmental education and ecological footprint awareness of the child development programme students. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 14(2), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2023-0018
Ramos, R. (2024). Activity proposals to improve children’s climate literacy and environmental literacy. Education Sciences, 14(2), 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020194
Scheie, E. & Stromholt, S. (2019). “The sustainable backpack”: Exploring possibilities in education for sustainable development through a nationwide professional development program. Acta Didactica Norge, 13(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.6473
Sulak, H. (2018). İnsan-doğa ilişkisinin dönüşümü: Tarihsel bir perspektif [Transformation of human-nature relation: A historical perspective]. Urban Academy, 11(1), 117-124.
Şahin, F. & Karayılan, G. (2019). Ekolojik ayak izi oyunlarının ilkokul dört ve beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin çevre okuryazarlığına etkisi [The effect of the fourth and five-year class students on the environmental literacy of the primary school of the ecological footprint own]. The Journal of International Educational Sciences, 5(15), 21-45. https://doi.org/10.16991/INESJOURNAL.1550
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6, pp. 497-516). Pearson.
Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., Hanscom, L., Lin, D., Mailhes, L., & Drummond, T. (2018). Ecological Footprint accounts: Criticisms and applications 1. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators (pp. 521-539). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315561103-33
Wilson, J. & Anielski, M. (2004). Ecological footprints of Canadian municipalities and regions. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, ON.
WWF (2012). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu [Turkey's ecological footprint report]. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Türkiye).
Downloads
How to Cite
Published
Issue
Section
Statistics
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Alperen Geldi, Ayşe Coşkun, Hamdi Karakaş
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
