Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442

5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013

Evaluation of The Level of The Environment Knowledge of

Teacher Candidates of Social Studies (Sample Turkey)*
Kadir KARATEKİNa†, Fatih İMATa
a
Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, 37000, Turkey.

Abstract

It is aimed at the evaluation of the environment knowledge of teacher candidates of social studies from different variants in this
survey. For this purpose, it is applied to 1587 teacher candidates of Social Studies Departments in Faculties of Education at 6
universities in different regions of Turkey. At the end of this survey, it is realized that these teacher candidates have average
level of the environment knowledge. This research show that their level of the environment knowledge doesn't change to their
gender, environmental education courses and educational background of their parents so much, however; it changes to their
interest in environment and the frequency of their existence in natural areas. As a consequence of this survey, it is expected that
the courses on the environment knowledge at universities attaching students' interest and being suitable for application in natural
areas will strengthen their environment knowledge level.
©© 2013
2013 The
The Authors
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier Ltd. Open
Elsevier Ltd. All rights
accessreserved
under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer
Selection and/or review under
peer-review underresponsibility
the responsibility of Prof.
of Academic Dr.Education
World Servet Bayram
and Research Center.
Keywords: Social studies, teacher candidate of social studies, environmental knowlede.

1. Introduction

The concept of environment is started to be used widely due to the increase of environment problems and threat
to humanbeing. The well known definition of environment is accepted as an external surroundings in which all
living things cohabit and sustain their relationship (Çepel, 1992; Çevre Bakanlığı, 1998). Environment regarded as a
whole of the external conditions having influences on human and being influenced by human, happened to be a
problem. This fact is closely related to the damage of relationship with environment and humanbeing, and the efforts
of humanbeing to dominate the nature (Öktem, 2003). The effects of humanbeing on environment have increased
too fast since Industrial Revolution (Tümertekin, 1994). It is considered that the world has protected its ecological
balance until the second half of 20th century despite all these problems growing out of Industrial Revolution. The
key factor on the damage of this balance is the population explosion after the second half of 20th century (Akın,
2009). The population explosion has caused to put pressure on natural sources (Çevre Bakanlığı, 1998). The use of
these sources has happened to be a problem to meet the needs of the population (Görmez, 2003). Not only
environmental problems have loomed larged globally since the beginning of 70's but also, the movements of
environmental education have become widespread. These movements have gained an international ground due to
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 (Eroğlu ve Keleş, 2009). Later on,
UNESCO and United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) put International Environmental Education Program
(IEEP) on the recommendation of Environment Conference I ( Stockholm, 1972) (Palmer ve Neal, 1996; Yıldız,
Sipahioğlu ve Yılmaz, 2009). With the cooperation of UNESCO and UNEP, Environmental Education Conference I

*
This research is refered to dissertation of the first writer who studied at the Department of Social Science Educational Faculty, Institude of
Educational Sciences at Gazi University.

†
Kadir KARATEKİN
E-mail address: kadirkaratekn@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.962
 Kadir Karatekin and Fatih İmat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442 4437

at ministerial level among governments, is held in Tbilisi in 1977. Furthermore, steps of environmental education
are taken at a global stage via this conference (Ünal ve Dımışkı, 1999). It is especially accepted in Tbilisi
Declaration of UNESCO that environmental education contributes much to constitute awareness of saving
environment (Kiziroğlu, 2000). In respect of this report, the purposes of environmental education is to improve
awareness, knowledge, attitude, skill and participation of the individuals (Ünal ve Dımışkı, 1999). The individuals
having these features are considered as environmental literates. Roth who mentions the concept of environmental
literate first, divides it into four categories as knowledge, skill, emotional field and behaviors (Roth, 1992). The
aspect of knowledge on environmental literate is regarded as a priority of concerned behaviors and actions
(Disinger, 2001). North American Association for Environmental Education divides environmental literate into sub-
categories as ecological knowledge, social-political knowledge and knowledge of environmental problems as part of
environmental education developed by National Project for Perfection in Environmental Education (Volk and
Mcbeth, 2001). Consequently, if aim of environmental education is to have environmental literate individuals at
expected level, firstly, the individuals should have a detailed environment knowledge. Foremost course is social
science which conveys environmental knowledge at primary school. In order to acquire a detailed information of
environment, social science teachers who will conduct the process of environmental knowledge efficiently should
especially have a desired level of environmental knowledge as well as other teachers. However, when the literature
is reviewed, it is noticable that undergraduate university students have low or avarage level of environmental
knowledge (Owens, 2000; Kibert, 2000;Yılmaz, Morgil, Aktuğ ve Göbekli, 2002; Şahin, Cerrah, Saka ve Şahin,
2004; Deniş ve Genç, 2007; Aydemir, 2007; Pe’er, Goldman ve Yavetz, 2007; Alagöz, 2009; Teksöz, Şahin ve
Ertepınar, 2010; Altınöz, 2010; Timur, 2011). The purpose of this research is to determine the level of
environmental knowledge of undergraduate students at Social Science Departments expected to lead the process of
environmental education and evaluate the effective variables on environmental knowledge.

2. Method
2.1. Research Model
Scanning is carried out in this research. To Karasar (1999), scanning method is aimed at showing a situation still
existing or being in the past.
2.2. Study Group
Study group of this research consists of 1587 undergraduate students at 1., 2., 3., 4., floors of Social Science
Educational Faculty at different six universities. Universities in various regions having distinguished social-
economic features are choosen as a sample group targeted at having the most various samples. The depiction of
demographic statistics of sample group is as followed:

Table1. Distribution of Study Group to Universities

University f %
Gazi University 327 20,6
Karadeniz Teknik University 324 20,4
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University 258 16,3
Afyon Kocatepe University 257 16,2
Kafkas University 234 14,7
Kilis 7 Aralık University 187 11,8
Total 1587 100,0
Table 1 shows that the most participants among other universities 26% (327) are the teacher candidates of Social
Studies Educational Faculty at Gazi University. However, the least participants 11,8 % (187) are the teacher
candidates of 7 Aralık University.

Table 2. Distribution of the Teacher Candidates of Social Studies to Gender

Gender f %
Female 755 47,6
Male 832 52,4
Total 1587 100,0
4438 Kadir Karatekin and Fatih İmat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442

Table 2 shows that 47,6 % of the sample group of 1587 is female and 52,4 % is male. The rations indicates that
the number of female and male teacher candidates of social studies is close to one another.
2.3. Collection of Data
Tests on Personal Information and Environmental Knowledge are applied to show environmental knowledge
level of the undergraduates at Educational Faculty of Social Science. Some of questions in environmental
knowledge test consist of "High School Environmental Survey" carried out to show environmental literacy of high
school students in the report of " Environmental Education in Wisconsin: are we walking the talk?" published by
Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education. On the other hand, some of the questions consist of dissertation
named "To Determine The Level Of The Environmental Literacy Of The teacher Candidates at Science" by Timur
(2011). Furthermore, some of the questions are constituted by Karatekin(2011). Environmental knowledge Test
consisting of 30 questions to show the knowledge of the undergraduates includes 21 questions of them after a pilot
application and coefficient of reliability (KR20) is accounted for 0,71. Environmental knowledge test is categorized
into three parts as ecological knowledge, overall environmental knowledge and social- political- economic
knowledge.
2.4. Analysis of Data
Each correct answer is graded '1' point and wrong or unanswered one is graded '0' point at the evaluation of the
environmental knowledge test. The lowest grade of the test of 21 is '0' and the highest grade is '21. 'SPSS 15 is
carried out at the statistical analysis of research. Scanning test is applied to independent samples and environmental
knowledge level and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is carried out for unrelated samples.

Table 3. Social Studies Teacher Candidates' Environmental Knowledge Test and Descriptive Data of Sub-
Dimensions

Sub-categories
N The lowest grade The highest grade Χ S
Of Environmental Knowledge
Ecological Knowledge 1587 0 6 3,50 1,39
Environmental Knowledge 1587 0 12 6,95 1,99
Social-Political-Economic Knowledge 1587 0 3 1,17 ,818
Total Knowledge 1587 0 21 11,61 3,15
Environmental knowledge test consists of three sub-categories. There are totally six questions on ecological
knowledge. The arithmetic average of the teacher candidates' grades is 3,50 ( =3,50). There are 12 questions on
environmental knowledge. Its arithmetic average is 6,95 ( =6,95). There are 3 questions about social- political-
economic knowledge. Its arithmetic average is 1,17 ( =1,17). Overall environmental knowledge has 21 questions.
Its arithmetic average is 11,61 ( =11,61). These findings show that success on the environmental knowledge of the
teachers candidates of social studies is at the average

3. Finding

Table 4. Social Studies Teacher Candidates' Environmental Knowledge Test Scores According to Gender t-Test
Results for Difference

Gender N Χ S sd t p
Environmental Female 755 11,64 3,09
832 11,58 3,20 1585 ,346 ,730
Knowledge Male
According to Table 4 teacher candidates’ environmental knowledge levels did not differ significantly by gender.
[t(1585) = ,346; p>0,05].

Table 5. Social Studies Teachers Candidates’ Environmental Knowledge Test Scores According to Level of
Studying of College Environmental Education Course by t-Test Results for Differences

Environmental Course N Χ S sd t p
Environment University Yes 631 11,47 3,63 1585 2,446 ,051
 Kadir Karatekin and Fatih İmat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442 4439

Knowledge No 956 11,77 2,77

Table 5 shows that there is no significant difference in having environmental education courses or not [t(1585) =
2,446; p>0,05] . In other words, environmental knowledge level of the teacher candidates of social studies does not
change to the courses of environmental education.
Table 6. Social Studies Teacher Candidates' Environmental Knowledge Test Scores by One Way Analysis of
Variance for Difference According to Mother Education Level

Sources of Variance KT sd KO F p

Among groups 64,892 4 16,223 1,636 ,163

Inner groups 15684,871 1582 9,915
Total 15749,763 1586
Results of the analysis indicate that there is no significant impact of the educational background of the mothers
on the teacher candidates of social studies' environmental knowledge [F(4-1582)= 1,636; p>0,05].

Table 7. Social Studies Teacher Candidates' Environmental Knowledge Test Scores by One Way Analysis of
Variance for Difference According to Father’s Education Level

Sources of Variance KT sd KO F p
Among groups 34,582 4 8,646 ,870 ,481
Inner groups 15715,181 1582 9,934
Total 15749,763 1586
This table show us that there is no remarkable effect of the educational background of the fathers on the teacher
candidates of social studies' environmental knowledge [F (4-1582) = ,870; p>0,05].

Table 8. Social Studies Teacher Candidates’ Environmental Knowledge Test Scores by Level of Curiosity to
Towards the Environment One-Way Analysis of Variance for Difference

Fark
Sources of Variance KT sd KO F p
Scheffe
Among groups 172,217 3 57,406 5,872 ,001 1-4
Inner groups 15437,635 1579 9,777 2-4
Total 15609,852 1582
This analysis shows that there is a close relationship with the level of interest in environment and environmental
knowledge [F (3-1579) = 5,872; p<0,05]. The test of Scheffe is carried out to learn more about significant differences
among groups. Accordingly, the arithmetic average on the environmental knowledge of the teachers candidates of
social studies who are always interested in environment is ( =11,86). On the other hand, the arithmetic average
on the environmental knowledge test of those who are never interested in environment is ( =9,87). Moreover, the
arithmetic average of those who are seldom interested in environment is ( =10,50). This fact indicates the
importance of being interested in environment for the environment knowledge of the teachers candidates of social
studies.
Table 9. Descriptive Data on Environment Variable Level of curiosity

Grup Level of curiosity N Χ S

1 I am never curiosity it 24 9,87 3,75
Environmental 2 I am rarely curiosity it 55 10,50 3,68
Knowledge 3 I am sometimes curiosity it 1006 11,60 3,08
4 I am always curiosity it 498 11,86 3,11

Table 10. Social Studies Teacher Candidates' Environmental Knowledge Test Scores by Frequency of Natural
Areas presence One Way Analysis of Variance for Difference

Sources of Variance KT sd KO F p Difference Scheffe

4440 Kadir Karatekin and Fatih İmat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442

Among groups 205,610 3 68,537 6,989 ,000 1-3,1-4

Inner groups 15494,313 1580 9,807 2-3, 2-4
Total 15699,924 1583
The results show that the teachers candidates' environmental knowledge depends on the frequency of their
presence in natural surroundings[F (3-1580) = 6,989; p<0,05]. The Test of Scheffe is carried out to learn more about the
frequency of existence in natural environment among groups. It shows that the arithmetic average of environmental
knowledge of the teachers candidates who never exist in natural surroundings is ( =10,80) and the arithmetic
average of those who sometimes exist in natural surroundings is ( =11,59). On the other hand, the average of
environmental knowledge of those who often exist in natural surroundings is 1( =11,93). This shows us that there
is a remarkable difference between those who often or sometimes exist in natural surroundings and those who do
not. More existence in natural surroundings contributes to the environmental knowledge.

Table 11. Descriptive Data on Variable Frequency of Presence in Natural Areas

The frequency of
Grup N Χ S
existence in natural areas
1 Never 25 10,80 3,60
Environmental 2 Seldom 193 10,80 3,03
Knowledge 3 Sometimes 746 11,59 3,25
4 Often 620 11,93 2,99

Table 12. Social Studies Teacher Candidates' Environmental Knowledge Test Scores According to Their Level of
Interest to Environmental Issues by One-Way Analysis of Variance for difference

Sources of Variance KT sd KO F p Difference Scheffe

Among groups 99,254 2 49,627 5,021 ,007
1-3
Inner groups 15617,456 1580 9,884
Total 15716,710 1582
Analysis of the teachers candidates’ environmental knowledge levels, showed a significant difference by the
level of interest in environmental issues [F (2-1580)= 5,021; p<0,05]. The Test of Scheffe is carried out to learn the
differences among groups. Its arithmetic average is 11, 91 ( =11,91). As a result of this, there is a remarkable
difference between the arithmetic average on environmental knowledge of the teachers candidates who are
interested much in environmental issues and those who are less interested in them =11,27). This indicates that
more interest in environmental issues contributes to the level of environmental knowledge.

Table 13. Descriptive data by the Level of Interest in Environment Issues Variable

Interest in Environmental
Group N Χ S
Issues
1 less interest
341 11,27 3,16
Environmental 2 It is almost the same
645 11,51 3,22
Knowledge 3 more interest
597 11,91 3,04

4. Conclusion
Analysis of relations between teacher candidate’s environmental knowledge levels and their genders , show no
significant difference was found. The result of the research shows to parallelism with these researches: Owens
(2000); Armağan (2006); Akbaş (2007); Deniş ve Genç (2007); Ökesli, (2008); Timur (2011). The environmental
education of the undergraduate students in social studies has no positive effects on the environmental knowledge of
them. This result shows to parallelism with the research done by Owens (2000). The researches of Şahin, Cerrah,
Saka and Şahin (2004) shows that although the primary school teacher candidates at the educational faculty take
education of environment, the knowledge of environment is very low. The researches of Deniş and Genç (2007)
show that primary school teacher candidates who have the education of environment are more knowledgeable than
 Kadir Karatekin and Fatih İmat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442 4441

the students who don’t have the education of environment, but they haven’t enough knowledge about it. Altınöz
(2010) also shows that undergraduate Students who have the education of environment are more knowledgeable
than the students who don’t have the education of environment. The reason of these different results is related to the
quality of education. When the education of environment which is taught according to the aims of the Tbilisi
declaration, naturally the results will be different. The students’ whose mothers have different educational
background have nearly the same level of environmental knowledge. This result shows to parallelism with Altınöz
(2010) but it doesn’t show to parallelism to Chu and others (2007); Pe’er, Goldman and Yavetz (2007); Varışlı
(2009) and Timur (2011) The students’ whose fathers have different educational background have almost the same
level of environmental knowledge. This result shows to parallelism with Altınöz (2010) , Gürsakal and Sam (2010).
Finally, in this research it is shown that there is a meaningful difference between the teachers candidates of social
studies who are less interested in environmental subjects and those who are interested in these subjects. According
to it, the students who are interested in environmental subjects have higher level of environmental knowledge. This
result shows to parallelism with Ökesli, (2008)
According to these results, it is suggested to do activities that attracts the students’ interests and curiosity to the
environment from pre-school education to the university-in each educational level- in the natural areas.
References
Akbaş, T. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarında çevre olgusunun araştırılması, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
Akın, G. (2009). Ekoloji-çevrebilim ve çevre sorunları. Ankara: Tiydem Yayıncılık.
Alagöz, B. (2009). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarında çevre bilincinin geliştirilmesinde probleme dayalı öğrenme yönteminin etkisi,
Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Altınöz, N. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlık düzeyleri, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
Armağan, F. Ö. (2006). İlköğretim 7-8. sınıf öğrencilerinin çevre eğitimi ile ilgili bilgi düzeyleri (Kırıkkale il merkezi örneklemi),
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Aydemir, M. (2007). The investigation of teachers with respect to knowledge level on environmental concepts. Unpublished Master Dissertation,
The Graduate School of Social Sciences Middle East Technical University.
Çepel, N. (1992). Doğa çevre ekoloji ve insanlığın ekolojik sorunları. İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar.
Chu, E.H., Lee, A. E., Ko, R. H., Shin, H. D., Lee, N. M., Min, M. B. and Kang, H. K. (2007). Korean year 3 children’s environmental literacy: a
prerequisite for a Korean environmental education curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (6), 731–746.
Deniş, H. ve Genç, H. (2007). Çevre bilimi dersi alan ve almayan sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin çevreye ilişkin tutumları ve çevre bilimi
dersindeki başarılarının karşılaştırılması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (13), 20-26.
Disinger, F. J. (2001b). K-12 education and the environment: perspectives, expectations, and practice, The Journal of Environmental Education.
33 (1), 4-11.
Eroğlu, B. ve Keleş, E. (2009). Çevre eğitimi., Mustafa Aydoğdu (Edt.), Fen eğitiminde çevre eğitimi, Ankara: Pozitif Matbaacılık.
Çevre Bakanlığı, (1998). Çevre notları, Ankara: Çevre Eğitimi ve Yayın Dairesi Başkanlığı.
Görmez, K. (2003). Çevre sorunları ve Türkiye, Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Karasar, N. (1999). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
Karatekin, K. (2011). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Kibert, C. N. (2000). An analysis of the correlations between the attitude, behavior, and knowledge components of environmental literacy in
undergraduate university students. Unpublished Master Dissertation, The Graduate School of the Unıversıty Of Florıda, USA.
Kiziroğlu, İ. (2000, 1-2 Kasım). Türk eğitim sisteminde çevre eğitimi ve karşılaşılan sorunlar. V. Uluslararası Ekoloji ve Çevre Sorunları
Sempozyumu, Ankara Çevre Bakanlığı. ss. 157-164.
Owens, M.A. (2000). The environmental literacy of urban middle school teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of the Graduate
School of Emory University, USA.
Ökesli, F. T. (2008). Relationship between primary school students’ environmental literacy and selected variables ın Bodrum, Unpublished
Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Öktem, M. (2003) Kent çevre ve globalleşme, İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
Palmer J. and Neal P. (1996). The Handbook of Environmental Education. London: Routledge
Pe’er, S., Goldman, D. and Yavetz B. (2007). Environmental literacy in teacher training: attitudes, knowledge, and environmental behavior of
beginning students, The Journal of Envıronmental Educatıon, 39 (1), 45-59.
Roth, C.E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990 s. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 348 235).
Sam, N., Gürsakal, S. ve Sam, R. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin çevresel risk algısı ve çevresel tutumlarının belirlenmesi, Akademik Bakış
Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E Dergisi, (20).
Şahin, F., N., Cerrah, L., Saka, A. ve Şahin, B. (2004). Yüksek öğretimde öğrenci merkezli çevre eğitimi dersine yönelik bir uygulama. Gazi
Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, (3), 113-128.
Teksöz, G., Şahin, E. ve Ertepınar, H. (2010). Çevre okuryazarlığı, öğretmen adayları ve sürdürülebilir bir gelecek. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 307-320.
Timur, S. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Tümertekin, E. (1994). Beşeri coğrafya giriş. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Basımevi.
Ünal, S. ve Dımışkı E. (1999). Unesco-Unep himayesinde çevre eğitiminin gelişimi ve Türkiye'de ortaöğretim çevre eğitimi. Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16-17: 142 – 154.
4442 Kadir Karatekin and Fatih İmat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4436 – 4442

Varışlı, T. (2009). Evaluating eighty grade student’s environmental literacy: the role of socio-demographic variables, Unpublished Master
Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education (1994) High school environmental survey. Stevens Point, WI: WCEE.
Volk, L. T .& Mcbeth, W. (2001). Environmental literacy in the United States, (Eds: Hurold R. Hungerford, William J. Bluhm, Trudi L. Volk,
John M. Ramsey). Essential Readings in Environmental Education 2. Edition, Illinois, Stipes Publishing L.L.C.
Yıldız, K., Sipahioğlu, Ş. ve Yılmaz M. (2009). Çevre Bilimi ve Eğitimi, Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
Yılmaz, A., Morgil, İ., Aktuğ, P. ve Göbekli, İ. (2002). Ortaöğretim ve üniversite öğrencilerinin çevre, çevre kavramları ve sorunları konusundaki
bilgileri ve öneriler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 156-162.