1 / 42

Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College Students

Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College Students. Doç.Dr . Nazmiye Erdoğan Baskent University. Environmental / ecological crisis. Industrial Production Distrubution Consumption. A n anthropocentric worldview. (a) H uman are superior and above nature

brook
Download Presentation

Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College Students

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College Students Doç.Dr. Nazmiye ErdoğanBaskentUniversity

  2. Environmental/ecologicalcrisis IndustrialProduction Distrubution Consumption

  3. An anthropocentric worldview (a) Human are superior and above nature (b) There is abundance of natural resources and there is no need for conservation (c) Human beings, by virtue of possessing culture and technology, are able to adapt nature to human aims, rather than adapt to the natural environment

  4. Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) • A belief in limitless resources, continuous progress, and the necessity of growth (2) Faith in the problem solving abilities of science and technology

  5. Ecocentricworldview High valuation of nature Generalized compassion toward other species, other peoples and other generations Careful planning and acting to avoid risks to humans and nature Recognition that there are limits to growth to which humans must adapt Consultative and participatory new politics emphasizing on foresight and planning

  6. METHOD

  7. This study was designed to

  8. H1: Although more students are expected to have pro-environmental views, they are not expected to embrace high level of pro-environmental orientation. • H2: Students who took a course in environment and students who did not take any will differ in their environmental worldviews. • H3: First year students and fourth year students will differ in their environmental views. • H4: There is a gender difference in environmental views: more female than male students have pro-environmental views, while more male than female students have pro-DSP view. • H5: There is relationship between socio-economic status and environmental views.

  9. Study Population and Sample 1295 UndergraduateStudents 941 Baskent University 145 students Mustafa Kemal University 107 KaradenizTeknik University 102 Ankara University Study Population and Sample

  10. Measurement and Analysis

  11. School status was defined first-year, second-year, third-year and fourth-year students. • Environmental course was defined “yes” (course-taker) and “no” (non-taker). • SES was measured by family income and grouped as “low”, “medium” and “high”.

  12. FINDINGS

  13. Students’ environmental worldviews • 56.5 % of students hold pro-environmental views • 24.6 % embrace pro-DSP views • 18.8 % have unsure/ambivalent views

  14. Dünyanın barındırabileceği insan sayısının üst sınırına yaklaşıyoruz • İnsanlar doğaya müdahale ettiğinde genellikle yıkıcı sonuçlar ortaya çıkar. • Bitkiler ev hayvanlar da insanlar kadar var olma hakkına sahiptir • İnsan çevreyi/doğayı ciddi şekilde kötü kullanıyor • Özel yeteneklerimize rağmen, biz hala doğanın yasalarına tabiyiz • Doğal denge çok hassastır ve kolayca bozulabilir • Her şey böyle giderse yakında büyük bir ekolojik faciayla karşılaşacağız • Bilimin faydası kadar zararı da vardır • Teknolojik gelişme faydalı olduğu kadar zarar da verir • İnsan varlığını sürdürebilmek için doğa ile uyum içinde yaşamalı • Hızlı ekonomik gelişme çoğu kez faydadan çok zarar ortaya çıkarır • Ülkemizin kaynaklarını korumak için güçlü tedbirler almalıyız • Çevre kirliliğini önlemek için endüstri üzerinde kontrol olmalı • İnsanların, doğayı kendi ihtiyaçlarına uygun şekilde düzenleme hakkı vardır • Turizm çevreyi korumada sorumluluklarını yerine getirmelidir

  15. İnsanların, doğayı kendi ihtiyaçlarına uygun şekilde düzenleme hakkı vardır • İnsan zekâsı dünyayı yaşanamaz bir hale getirmemizi önleyecektir. • Doğal denge endüstrilerin olumsuz etkileriyle baş edecek kadar güçlüdür • İnsanlığın yüz yüze geldiği söylenen ekolojik kriz çok abartılmaktadır • İnsan doğaya hükmetmek için yaratılmıştır • İnsan doğayı kontrol edebilmek için onun nasıl çalıştığını sonunda öğrenecek • Teknolojik gelişme ile çoğu sorun çözülebilir • Son yıllarda çevre kirliliği yasaları haddinden fazla katılaştı • Çevre yasaları endüstri üzerine haksız yük getirmektedir • Turizmin gelişmesi için kaynaklar sınırsız olarak kullanılabilir

  16. The mean score for the 25 items • The mean score for the 25 items, after correcting for the directionality of the items • was found to be 3.75 which indicate that the overall environmentalviews of students falls at the lower rank of pro-environmentalorientation.

  17. Distributions on the Pro-environmental items (items 1-15) • 75.3% students agree on these statements • Only10.5% disagree • 14.1% are undecided. • In terms of overall mean index of pro-environmental items, general orientation of students is at 4.05 (mildly agree) level.

  18. Distributions on the pro-DSP items(items 16-25) • reveal that 28.5% agree with the statements, • while there are considerable numbers of disagreeing (45.7%) • undecided (25.8%) students. • Regarding overall mean index of pro-DSP items, general orientation of students is at 3.31 point.

  19. Difference between the environmental course-takers and non-takers

  20. Agreements on items by course-takers range from 61.8 to 81.0% for pro-environmental items • 17.4 to 40.6% for the pro-DSP items. • Agreements by non-takers range from • 49.7 to 84.6% for the pro-environmental items and 23.2 to 39.9% for the pro-DSP items.

  21. Item 4 (Humans are severely abusing the environment) • Undecided percentage of 6.6 for course-takersand 6.5% for non-takers. The remaining undecided responses range from 11.5 to 39.6% for course-takers • and 20.7 to 32.9% for non-takers.

  22. Environmental course takersornontakers

  23. humans are severely abusing the environment • Distribution of agreement with the statement that is • 81.0% for the course-takers • 84.6 % for non-takers. • 12.5% of course takers • 8.9% of non-takers disagree with the same statement.

  24. Fasteconomical growth mostly engenders more harm than benefit. • 61.8 % of course-takers • 49.7 % of non-takers agree with the statement • Disagreement is relatively low: • 14.0% for course-takers • 10.3% for non-takers. • More non-takers (30.0%) than course-takers (24.2 %) are undecided.

  25. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable • Those who think that comprise • 39.9% of non-takers • 40.6% course-takers. • More non-takers (27.2%) than course-takers (19.8 %) do not agree with the statement. • There are 32.9 % non-takers and 39.6 % course-takers that are undecided.

  26. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. • There is a considerable difference between the two groups in the idea • 63.3% of course-takers • 50.3% of non-takers do not agree with the idea. • Correspondingly, • 17.4 % of course-takers • 30.0% of non-takers agree with it.

  27. School status37.6% first year32.3% second year16.8% third year 13.4% fourth year students. • There were significant differences of opinion on only three statements at .05 level (items 9, 19, 25). • Frequency distributions on the three items show that there are considerable differences between first year students and fourth year students

  28. Technological development cause harm as much as benefit • 76.3% of the first year • 62.8 % of last year students agree with • 10.7% of first years students • 17.2% of last year students do not agree with

  29. Humans were meant to rule over rest of nature • 28.8% of first year students agree • 23.1% of fourth year students agree. • 22.2% undecided first year students • 13.6 % fourth year students • Less first year students (49.0%) than fourth year students (63.3%) disagree with

  30. Gender differences54.7% female • More females than males agree with all 13 significant pro-environmental statements. • On the other hand, more males than females agree with all significant pro-DSP statements. • These results overwhelmingly support the hypothesis stating existence of gender difference on environmental worldviews

  31. Similarly, there are no striking gender differences in the pro-DSP items: • Agreements • range from 11.9 to 52.9% for females • 19.3 to 53.9% for males • whereas disagreements • range from 14.8 to 69.2% for females • 18.9 to 60.3% for males.

  32. Significant differences according to gender

  33. Socio-economic status • Of 1295 students, 504 (% 38.9%) declined to answer to this question. • These results provide partial support for the hypothesis (H5) on the existence of relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and environmental orientation.

  34. Regarding the significant relations, • low SES students agree with all pro-environmental statements more than medium SES and high SES students. • Expectedly, low SES students agree less with pro-DSP statements. • Similar results were found in most statements between the medium SES and high SES students.

  35. Agreement responses on the • pro-environmental items were in the range • 65.4% - 96.1% for low SES group, • 69.0- 90.6% for the medium SES group • 59.9% - 88.2% for the high SES group.

  36. Conclusion and Discussion

  37. Conclusion • The present study results show that majority of students (56.0%) hold pro-Env views. • However, about one fourth of students have pro-DSP oriented ideas in varying degree. • Results provided partial support for the hypothesized relationships.

  38. Female studentswith low socio-economic status and first-year students have higher pro-environmental orientations. • Taking a course on environment makes only slight difference in opinions.

  39. It was concluded that students’ environmental orientations change varying extent according to gender, socio-economic status and education which are probably determined by the historical and cultural context and characteristics of the population under study. • Results suggest that there exists a reasonable level of environmental awareness; however university policies and practices on the environmental education and issues need to be reassessed and geared toward cultivating environmental sensitivity.

  40. These findings suggest that the students’ environmental worldviews do not reflect a widespread adoption of the pro-environmental orientation. • The previous studies mostly indicate positive relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors.

More Related