Content uploaded by Sukran Yalcin Ozdilek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sukran Yalcin Ozdilek on Jan 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Effectiveness of an Ecopedagogy Based Outdoor Environmental Education Program on
Environmental Awareness: Canakkale (Gallipoli), Turkey
*Emel Okur-Berberoglu, Research Assistant, emelokur17@gmail.com, Canakkale Onsekiz
Mart University Faculty of Education, Science Education Department, Biology Education
Division, Canakkale (Corresponding Author)
Sukran Yalcin- Ozdilek, Associate Professor, syalcinozdilek@gmail.com, Canakkale Onsekiz
Mart University Faculty of Science and Art, Department of Biology, Ecology Division,
Canakkale, Turkey.
Mustafa Yunus Eryaman, Assistant Prof, yunuseryaman@gmail.com, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart
University Faculty of Education, Canakkale, Turkey. The Editor of International Journal of
Progressive Education.
Selcuk Uygun, Associate Professor, selcukuygun17@gmail.com, Akdeniz University Faculty of
Education, Antalya, Turkey.
Zeynep Cetinkaya Edizer, Assistant Prof, cetinkayazeynep@gmail.com, Canakkale Onsekiz
Mart University Faculty of Education, Canakkale, Turkey.
The manuscript is 5.979 words.
2
Effectiveness of an Ecopedagogy Based Outdoor Environmental Education Program on
Environmental Awareness: Canakkale (Gallipoli), Turkey
Abstract
Recently outdoor education has become an important teaching method in order to increase
environmental awareness. The aim of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of an
ecopedagogy based outdoor education program on environmental awareness. Research
conducted in the program was based on analyzing the participants‘ reflective writings at the
beginning and end of the program via content analysis. It is found that ecopedagogy based
outdoor environmental education is effective in order to increase environmental awareness.
Key Words: Environment education, outdoor education, ecopedagogy, environmental
awareness, case study, teacher education
Introduction
The concept of ecopedagogy, which is based on sustainability, holism, and proactivity, is the
political and critical side of ecology. Ecopedagogy proposes that the organization of school
and curriculum to meet the needs of a sustainable environment and future. (Gadotti, 2010;
Kahn, 2010). Curricula based on ecopedagogy further helps in overcoming anthropocentrism
of traditional pedagogy (Gadotti, 2010). Acoording to anthropocentric view, nature is
evaluated an instumental tool to supply with human demands, and human is most powerful
species in the world (Barry, 2007). However ecopedagogy has ecocentric view so there is not
most powerful species in the world. Every species has right in order to live like human so
human cannot use nature how human wants. (Kahn, 2010; Barry, 2007) By this way
ecopedagogy helps to understand human- nature relationship (Kahn, 2010).
3
Ecopadogogical programs involve new teaching and learning methods one of which is
outdoor education (OE) (Gadotti, 2010). OE focuses on first hand experiences (Brody, 2005;
Priest, 1986) outside the classroom walls (Donaldson& Donaldson, 1958 in Powers, 2004).
Recently OE has become an important part of environmental education (EE) and these terms
(EE&OE) are often used synonymously (Robinson, 2008). By this way ecopedagogy based
OE is proposed with the aim of achieving better understanding of complex environmental
relationships and sustainable development (Morgan, Hamilton, Bentley& Myrie, 2009;
Dillon, 2003; Brody& Tomkiewicz, 2002). We think that having knowledge, and -in this
way- being aware of environmental problems are important in order to understand complex
environmental relationship so we concentrate on environmental awareness (EA) in this
research because OE research in other countries (Irwin, 2010 [New Zealand]; Blair, 2008
[Australia]; Thomas, 2005 [Australia]; Preston, 2004 [Australia]; Preston& Griffiths 2004
[Australia]; Lugg& Slattery, 2003 [Australia]; Piller, 2002 [Canada]; Palmberg& Kuru, 2000
[Finland]) mostly focus on this theme.
All these studies research effect of an OE on EA via qualitative methodology, and they find
OE is effective in order increase EA. As seen above five of the researches belong to Australia
region. Australia is one of the pioneer countries in terms of OE and Australian outdoor
environment education also is based on ecopedagogy (Huckle, 1991). One of the remarkable
properties of ecopedagogy is to raise EA (Fien, 1993 in Preston, 2011). On the other hand
Turkish environmental education system is based on ‗education about environment‘ (Okur,
2012) so this education is not effective to raise EA. Last decade teacher education are
supported to teach environmental education within OE in Turkey but the researches related to
OE, and efficacies of OE on EA are very limited in Turkey.
4
Guler (2009) carries out ecology based OE at Gala Lake National Park, and Igneada Longoz
Forest National Park in Edirne collaboration with Hacettepe University and TUBITAK (The
Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) in 2008. 24 in-service teachers
attend to the project which is applied for 12 days. The aims of the research are to determine
expectations of in-service teachers from project, to indicate self-efficacy level of EE teaching,
and to identify changing of personal opinion about EE. The data is collected by semi-
structured interview and analysed by discourse analyses. At the end of the analyses, the
participants say that their expectation form project is to gain environmental knowledge, and
they have it. They also say they are happy because of their perpective to the world change as
favourable, they feel more responsible to nature, and they will share and teach what they had
learnt. On the other hand, the participants do not have enough self-efficacy about using OE in
a lesson so they tend to invite an expert or academician about OE.
Keles, Uzun, Varnaci-Uzun (2010) carries out ecology based OE at Ihlara Valley in Aksaray
collaboration with Aksaray University and TUBITAK in 2009. 25 pre-service teachers attend
to the project which is applied for 10 days. The aims of the research are to determine
environmental awareness, and attitudes of participants via scales. The scales are applied as
pretest- posttest- postpost test (after 3 months). At the end of the analyses, it is indicated that
environmental awareness level of participants is increased, and environmental attitude is
changed as favourable.
As seen above only one research examine efficacy of OE on EA and both research do not
mention ecopedagogical perspective. Whereas some research states relationship between
environmental knowledge- awareness – attitude- behaviour (Barker& Rogers, 2004) so EA
should not be ignored. The aim of this research is to test effectiveness of an ecopedagogy
based OE programs on EA. Primary and secondary education system of Turkey is changed in
2012, and Turkish Ministry of Education has started to develop a new curriculum after 15
5
years. We think that if we support effectiveness of OE on EA, outdoor environmental
education will be very popular and common in Turkish education system.
Methodology
The data for this research is collected via the 109B031 coded TUBITAK project (Ecology in
Canakkale and its Suburbs) in 2009. An ecopedagogy based OE programme which would
support both academic and spiral properties is designed specifically for this research.
Program development of ecopedagogy based OE
The program has spiral property because there are 22 subjects related to ecology. Bruner
(1960) states that spiral curriculum is very useful to teach a wide ranging of knowledge. Lang
(1986 in Tsai, 2006) states that OE should be prepared within an academic discipline. The
aims of an academic program (AP) are to promote participants to be a part of knowledge-
making process, to gain relative perspectives, to improve cognitive levels, to sense as a
whole, and to provide knowledge from simple to complex stressing the interrelationship.
Awareness belongs to cognitive area so if somebody would like to be aware of a subject,
he/she should have knowledge related to the subject. The main idea of an AP is essentially to
promote thinking like a scientist, and analytical thinking. By this way people can understand
complex relationship among components of different disciplines (Bird, 2001; McNeil, 1996).
Project program is based on four themes: abiotic factors, biotic factors, specific properties of
area, and human pressure on ecosystem (App 1). Therefore, every activity is managed by a
lecturer who has PhD education related subject. There are 22 different activities in the project
and, correspondingly, 22 lecturers (App 2). The programme is applied sequentially. In other
words, knowledge gained from each activity is repeated and connected to the other activities
6
– with the aim of having participants observe the interconnectedness of all activities. (Yalcin-
Ozdilek, Ozdilek, Okur& Eryaman, 2011)
Within ecopedagogical perspective
program is designed according to interdiscipliner perspective (Bunderson, Cooper
1997; Piller 2002; Brookes 2004);
program is carried out within community in practice with ecologic and social contexts
(Preston 2004; Robottom 1987, in Fien & Rawling, 1996).
Program is based on onthological perspective what I can do to solve/ prevent
environmental problems (Thomashow, 1998; Ward, 1996).
all activities are carried out as placed-based (Emmons 1997; Piller 2002; Lugg,
Slattery 2003; Brookes 2004; Irwin 2010; Harrison 2010) in terms of Canakkale;
- as problem- based (Palmberg, Kuru 2000; Piller 2002) having connection with actual
environmental problems.
Participant selection
Participants in the project are in-service teachers because is one of the criteria of TUBITAK
projects. Teachers may share their environmental knowledge and experinece with students
and own families. Students may also share acquisition with own families. By this way
successive sharing may happen.
Teachers are recruited through an advertisement send to primary and secondary schools‘
electronic e-mail accounts. Volunteer enrolments to the initial program have to reply to all the
questions posted at the project website. Participant teachers are asked to complete an online
questionnaire which asked them why they wished to be involved in the project and some
demographic information. Participants are selected according to two criterias: One of them
was ‗not to join any TUBITAK EE project.‘ This is a special institutional policy. Teachers
7
can join only once to the projects. The other one is participant essay which explains why they
would like to join this project.
Project proposal program presented to TUBITAK is 10 days, and two periods; every period
aimed to educate 20 people. Hence the selected project participants consist of 40 people,
which are divided into two groups randomly and every period is ten days.
Data collection
Case study is determined as a research strategy to get a description or test a theory within
single settings. Qualitative, quantitave or both data resources may use to get research aims.
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Stufflebeam (2001) states that case study is also helpful enabling an
examination opportunity for both intended and unforeseen outputs. In this research
qualitative data are collected. Hence project team compares project outputs with expectations
of project team. Project team determines project expectations according to TUBITAK‘s
expectations and Fien and Tilbury (1996). Fien and Tilbury (1996), mention 57 different
outputs in their report about environmental education of teachers. We compare expectations
of TUBITAK and outputs of Fien and Tilbury, and determine project expectations. (Table 1)
Qualitative data are collected by two ways: open-ended questions and observation.
Participants‘ reflective writings are used for the case study on the basis of Hatch‘s (2002)
findings, which claim that the researcher may collect more valid data if the participants are
given the option of expressing themselves independently. With this in mind, open-ended
questions are asked in the hope of identifying as clearly as possible the participants‘ own
thoughts. Each question is written on a blank page and it is wanted participants expressed
themselves independently.
8
Participants write reflectively twice; at the beginning and end of the project. While questions
such as
- ―Why did you choose to participate in this project?‖; ―What is your expectations from
participating in this project?‖ were asked at the beginning;
participants were asked to respond to further questions such as
- ―Was the project up to your expectations?‖; and ―How would you rate your
satisfaction of the project?‖ at the end of the conclusion of the project.
It is established by Vidich (1955) that the application of multiple methodological techniques
is crucial to insuring a process of triangulation (Morgan et al, 2009). Triangulation promotes
validity and reliability of collected data. By this way results may check via double techniques.
One of these techniques is observation (Zanovello, 1999). The researcher might not always be
with the participants of a project, or participants might exhibit different attitudes when they
are alone as opposed to being in the presence of the researcher (Bas & Akturan, 2008). Hence
project team do not observe the participants. Participants observe another participants behalf
of project team.
The project team explains aims, process of the program, and responsibilities of participants at
the first day. After this explanation, randomly each participant draw lots to determine who to
observe within groups in which no participant has known each other before enrolling in the
project. At the end of each day, participants are asked to fill out an observation form. Four
questions are asked in the daily observation forms;
- ―Which behaviour or attitude did the observed person exhibit in terms of protecting the
environment?‖,
9
- ―What was the opinion of the observed person on technology and pollution?‖,
-―How did the observed person define him or herself amongst other living things in nature?‖,
- and ―What was the opinion of the observed person on the improvement of community
awareness?‖. All questions are supplemented by asking to all participants to provide at least
one example alongside his/her answer.
All participant essays are entered into computer recognised writing software formats for
analysis. Texts are coded to accuracy against key words and key ideas according to
expectations of project, and TUBITAK. As seen at Table 1, project expectations are presented
more detailed according to TUBITAK expectations. ‗Codes‘ are determined. Afterwards
overlapping codes are determined and ‗theme‘ is identified (Yildirim & Simsek, 2006).
Participants‘ expressions are presented with a coded format. For example ‗1.20‘, it means that
participant belongs to first group, and 20th line.
Table 1. Project team‘s list of expected outcomes from forum participants
1. increase of general knowledge related to the environment
2. ability to reconstruct own knowledge through analysis and synthesis
3. ability to present individual and group knowledge through devising activities
4. ability to distinguish relations between practical knowledge gained with subjects taught
5. ability to gain knowledge through discussions held with other participants
6. ability to see the environment from another angle – ―looking and seeing are not the same‖
7. realization of the fact that humans are not alone in nature
8. ability to describe and question furhter the concept of biodiversity
9. realization of the importance of biodiversity
10. integration of participants experience of everyday life with the knowledge gained during the project
11. realization of the need to economize
12. ability to manipulate everyday patterns in order to lower consumption and waste
13. realization of the need to avoid behaving egotistically
14. admiration towards living simply [naturally]
15. contemplation and discussion on the potential threat of the disappearance of nature
16. realization of the need to avoid constantly use nature as a source of material wellbeing
17. ability to formulate own opinions on issues related to nature
18. realization that the claim of a zero effect on nature by human activity is simply impossible
19. a passion towards active participation in subjects related to nature and conservation
10
Results
6th and 7th expectations are related to environmental awareness; 8th and 9th expectations are
related to biodiversity awareness (Table 1). Reflections on awareness are obtained in the post-
writing stage while there is not any expression in the pre-writing stage. (Table 2)
Table 2. Awareness expressions of participants according to pre and post writings
Codes
1.Group
2. Group
Total
Pre-writing
Post- writing
Pre- writing
Post- writing
1.Environmental awareness
-
7
-
6
13
2. Biodiversity awareness
-
5
-
2
7
Total
0
12
0
8
20
Environmental Awareness
7th activity of program is ‗Water quality and aquatic organisms‘, and happens at
Karamenderes River in Pinarbaşi Village. The participants are divided to five groups. They
filter the water river by milk strainer, and catch some invertebrate. They identify the
invertebrate until genus level by identification key. The participants also measure some
chemical and physical properties of water. 1.10 coded female participant reflects her opinion
very remarkably:
―We firstly learnt ‗ecosystem‘ concept via practice today. I think we learnt a little
bit ‗the language of nature‘. ‗Nature‘ means a little bit more anymore for us. I
dunked to spring water my hand at the first time. It was so cold, and nice.
And this is the first time I researched in stream which I ignore, look at ‗dirty
water‘ before. I was disgusting insects till yesterday, today I collected insect,
snail, worm by laboratory penset. It was an unpredictable and happy times for
me. I won‘t look at spiders disgustingly; this is a big development for me....
11
Our time is passing more productive, more enjoyable, and more ‗natural‘ here. It
is delightful... ―
The 8th activity is ‗Forest Ecosystem& Definition of vegetation and types‘. The lecturer
explains formation of forests according to elevations, and microclimatical properties of them
at Dalak Water. 1.17 coded male participants explains his opinion as:
―I realized how much the flora which I looked at ‗casual grass‘ is important, and
they live special land places. ―
The other interesting reflection comes from 2.13 coded male participant. Participants observe
each other during program. This participant observes 2.8 coded female participant, and
mentions ‗Underwater and marine ecology& Diving with tube‖ activity. The participants
have theoretic lesson previous day. They dive with tube almost 3 meters, and observe
underwater life. After diving, the lecturer wants them to observe the coast, and draw all the
marine species that they see. 2.8 coded participants finds a starfish during this activity, and
2.13 coded participants reflects own observation as:
―The day which we dived with tube I observed......She found a starfish. We started
to talk and she said she wanted to kill it. Another participant (I don‘t remember
his name) said that it was an endemic species. I am impressed because of she
released it to sea. If she kills it, I would be sad. Honestly I impressed because of
this lady‘s environmental awareness.‖
The last activity of the project is named ‗Our Ecological Footprints: How We Used to Live a
Century Ago‘. General examples are given on environmental changes. Caretta caretta sea
12
turtles is one of the subjects covered during this activity. 2.18 coded female participant‘s
reflection gives a good example of this theme.
―Watching the ovulation of Caretta caretta sea turtles, and the later dash to the sea
of the baby turtles after they hatch from the eggs were my most memorable
moments during this activity. It was a wonderful example on the struggle of life –
of how wonderful a balance there exists within nature.‖
1.1 coded male participant expresses his opinion about this activity as:
―I understood how much ecological footprint is important. If we buy an air
conditioner which does not release CO2, it doesn‘t mean there is not any carbon
releasing while production. This is our ecologic footprint.‖
Biodiversity Awareness
The participants visit the Dalak Water Resource during the ‗Endemic Plants in Canakkale‘
and ‗Forest ecosystems& Definition of vegetation and types‘ activities. They are divided into
five groups and asked to count the number of plants they recognized within a square meter of
their immediate surroundings. They are later asked to collect and explain the morphological
properties of their collected plants to the other groups whilst their audience tried to guess
what the collected plants are. Female participant 1.3‘s description gives a good example on
the reflections in this subtheme:
13
―I found endemic plants most interesting. I hadn‘t known Turkey had such a great
variety of endemic plants. Now I know that Turkey has 12,000 different types of
endemic plants – the same number of endemic plant varieties found all across the
European continent. We should protect them against the threat of extinction.‖
1.9 coded female participant utters;
―I am confused to find twelve plant species in one meter square.‖
The other remarkable activity for participants is ‗Role of insects in protection of nature‘. The
participants are divided into five groups, and they catch some insects via insect sweeping net
in Intepe region. They do not kill the insects. Lecturer brings some fixed specimens. The
participants compare fixed specimens with caught insects. They try to find differences, and
similarity. 1.1 coded male participants mentions this activity as:
―The importance of biological combat, and endemic species are affected me very
much.‖
2.12 coded female participant express their opinion related to this activity as:
―It is affected me the eye structure of insects are alike pollen, so they see
subjects/their environs like mosaic; not as whole. I learnt that we focus on
ourselves when we evaluate insects as harmful or useful.―
14
1.15 coded male participant mentions 4th activity at the program (App. 1). Its name is ‗Fauna
of Canakkale and its environs‘. The participants are divided to five groups in Dardanelle
Campus, and try to catch some reptilian, for instance turtle, lizard. The lecturer also brings
some fixed specimens (snake, turtle, lizard), and the participants examine them. The fixed
specimens are especially used in the research because sometimes it is so hard to catch some
species in daytime. For example snake.
―The knowledge related to reptilian is affected me. I am not aware of having more
reptilian species, and their properties in Turkey.‖
Discussion
Environmental awareness and biodiversity awareness are determined at the end of research.
Both themes are easily observed at the post-reflective writing stage, whilst none existed at
the pre-reflective writings (Table 2). These results can be attributed as overall success in
terms of awareness. In fact biodiversity awareness is a part of environmental awareness but
some of the participants especially express biodiversity awareness.
Biodiversity is particularly mentioned at biotic factor theme (App. 1) and expressions of
biodiversity awareness are related to 4th, 5th, and 6th activities. We think that the participants
have connection and experiences with species directly by these activities and they are
impressed/ affected because of touching fixed or living species. Priest (1986) emphasizes the
importance of experiences gained from experiential studying and usage of the five senses via
first hand participation as important for OE. Participants have extensive environmental
experience during the education programme, and the project is evaluated as successful after
analyzing the findings, which pointed towards an increase of biodiversity awareness.
15
Project team only focuses on the efficacy of the OE program on environmental awareness.
Environmental awareness is among the expectations of the project and TUBITAK (Table 1).
The project team wants participants to develop environmental awareness. Keles et al (2010)
research on teachers and their findings are similar to this project but they only mention
environmental awareness, not biodiversity awareness. In this perspective ecopedagogy based
OE program is especially effective to increase biodiversity awareness. Keles et al (2010) do
not mention which activity and how they apply. Maybe activity selection causes this result.
The high aim OE like all other forms of education is to promote behavioural changing
(Kahn, 2010; Biel, 2003). However behavioural changing takes longer periods to realize
(Ozden, 2008). Due to the fact of our project is applied for ten days, it is clear even before
the start of the research that there would not be an observance of any meaningful behavioural
change. It is, however, offered by the project team that participants need to be further
observed as a follow up by other projects in the future.
The research program is the first ecopedagogy based OE program of Turkey. At this first
step it is successful to increase environmental awareness and reveal biodiversity awareness.
This kind of programs may be evaluated in terms of gaining knowledge, attitude or
behavioural changing.
It is thought OE projects may support teachers‘ professional development. Teachers are
honest in expressing their lack of ecological knowledge and outdoor experience as Lugg and
Slattery (2003) suggest. Their purpose of joining a trip to the national park is to remedy this
drawback. Similiar expressions are indicated by teachers in Turkey. One of the participants
of this project has this to say:
―I am a biology teacher but really do not know ecological subjects. Also ecological subjects are at the
end of the syllabus so we tend to neglect these subjects. Most of the teachers in Turkey are like me, and
16
they are ashamed to confess these drawbacks. However, I now have self-confidence in ecological
subjects. I am keen on applying what I have learned.‖
Institutions (TUBITAK or MEB- Ministry of National Education of Turkey) and universities
may collaborate in order to remove teachers‘ professional inadequacy.
The concept of environmental education is not a recent trend – it has been recognized as an
important topic ever since the UN‘s 1977 Tbilisi Conference. According to this conference,
people of all ages need to be educated for a sustainable world (UNESCO, 1977). Another
topic of debate in EE is whether it works better within a classroom, or outdoors. Popular
attitudes towards conservation may be influenced best if individuals are given the chance to
actually experience the things they are meant to protect and love. The current reality of
human existence is a physical and emotional disengagement from the natural environment
(Shanely, 2006; Petrina, 2000; Zanovello, 1999). Education‘s importance increases at this
crucial point.
OE is not very popular in Turkey. It is generally a part of physical education or private
weekend activities in terms of adventure education. However we think that OE may be an
important part of formal education. We understand OE is applied very successfully in New
Zealand and Australia in formal education. There are also special OE departments in the
universities (for instance Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (New Zealand),
Latrobe University, University of Wollongong, Griffith University, Victoria
University, University of South Australia, Monash University (Australia) and foundations
(Auckland City Council, Canterbury Environmental Trust (New Zealand), Outdoor
Educators Association of South Australia, South Australian Secondary School Assessment
Board, Outdoor Education Australia etc.) related to OE, and they support formal education.
When we search literature review we realize that New Zealand and Australia have either
17
experimental/ summative researches (Irwin, 2010 [New Zealand]; Blair, 2008 [Australia];
Thomas, 2005 [Australia]; Preston, 2004 [Australia]; Preston& Griffiths 2004 [Australia];
Lugg& Slattery, 2003 [Australia] or formative research (Fien, 2000; Payne, 2002; Gralton,
Sinclair & Purnell, 2004; Robottom, 2005). There is only one formative article in terms of
environmental education in Turkey (Erdogan, Marcinkowski, Ok, 2009). Our research
evaluation is summative. We also need formative evaluation. One of the project members
would like to evaluate as formative the other projects‘ program which applied since 1999 but
TUBITAK did not open the archive so project directors should publish their result reports.
By this way another researchers can decide what their further step should be.
Turkish education system has changed in 2012 and has started to renew primary and
secondary level curriculum after 15 years. Previous system focused on ‗education about
environment‘, and this was not succeeding to have strong sustainability. Strong
environmental sustainability is a big problem for Turkey. Turkey is a nominee country for
EU, and 27th negotiation title is ‗environment‘ (EU Negotiation Framework, 2005). EU
wants Turkey to have sustainable environment according to this title (EU Thinking Group,
2010) but environmental policies of Turkish Government are opposite of strong
environmental sustainability. MEB, TUBITAK, universities and NGO have to be
collaboration to develop curriculum, teacher education, and teacher professional
development in order to get strong environmental sustainability because Turkey needs to
change own political perspective to education and environment. We need critical thinking,
political activity which are based on ecopedagogy like Australia.
References
Barker, M. & Rogers, L. (2004). In, about, for: Exploring the foundations of environmental
education. Set 2, 2004, 15- 18. ISSN 0110-6376.
Barry, J. (2007). Environment and Social Theory. New York: Routledge.
18
Bas, T.&Akturan, U. (2008). Qualitative Research Methods. Ankara: Seckin Publication.
Biel, A. (2003). Environmental Behaviour: Changing Habitsin a Social Context, in Individual
and Structural Determinants of Envionmental Practices (Ed. Anders Biel, Bengt
Hansson, Mona Martensson). Hants: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Bird, E. (2001). Disciplining the interdisciplinary: Radicalism and the academic curriculum.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 463-478. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393423.
Blair, M. (2008). Community environmental education as a model for effective
environmental programmes. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 45-53.
Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=105&
sid=87e1d5d1-127a-4481-afc8-e9fafe0d03db%40sessionmgr104, 10.10.2011.
Brody, M. (2005). Learning in nature. Environmental Education Research, 11(5), 603–621.
Brody, M. & Tomkiewicz, W. (2002). Park visitors' understandings, values and beliefs related
to their experience at Midway Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA,
International Journal of Science Education, 24 (11), 1119 — 1141. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283.
Brookes, A. (2004). Astride a long-dead horse: mainstream outdoor education theory and
central curriculum problem. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8 (2), 22-33.
http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/pqdweb?index=0&did=1058624701&SrchMode
=1&sid=4&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1317861588
&clientId=8119 06.10.2011.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bunderson, E. D.& Cooper, J. G. (1997). An environmental education partnership for Utah
secondary schools: A plant species inventory for the box death hollow wilderness area.
The American Biology Teacher, 59 (6), 332-336. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/stable/pdfplus/4450324.pdf?acceptTC=true.
Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental Education: Missing theories,
ignored communities. Environmental Education Research, 9 (2), 215 — 226. Retrieved
from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713416156.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550. Retrieved from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=03637425%28198910%2914%3A4%3C532%3ABTFCSR%3E2.
0.CO%3B2-R.
Emmons, K. M. (1997). Perceptions of the environment while exploring the outdoors: A case
study in Belize. Environmental Education Research, 3 (3), 327-344. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1350462970030306.
Erdogan, M., Marcinkowski, T. & Ok, A. (2009). Content analysis of selected features of K‐8
environmental education research studies in Turkey, 1997–2007. Environmental
Education Research, 15 (5), 525-548, Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620903085776.
19
European Union Negotiation Framework, 2005,Retrieved from
http://www.abgs.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/AdaylikSureci/MuzakereCercevesi/Muzakere_Cerce
vesi_2005.pdf.
European Union Thinking Group Report 2010. Europe Project 2030, Dangers and
Opportunities, Retrieved from
http://www.abgs.gov.tr/files/di%C4%9Fer%20faydal%C4%B1%20dok%C3%BCmanlar/avrup
a_projesi_2030_ozet_rapor.pdf.
Fien, J.& Tilbury, D. (1996). Learning For A Sustainable Environment: An Agenda For
Teacher Education in Asia And The Pacific, Printed by UNESCO Principal Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001056/105607e.pdf.
Fien, J.& Rowling, R. (1996). Reflective practice: a case study of professional development
for environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 27 (3), 11-20. Retrieved
from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/ehost/detail?sid=77a9f14a-4920-4e0b-
83a4-
8d1e7b726bd8%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3
d%3d#db=pbh&AN=9606156946&anchor=toc.
Fien, J. (2000). Education for the Environment: A critique an analysis. Environmental
Education Research, 6 (2), 179-192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713664671.
Gadotti, M. (2010). Reorienting education practices towards sustainability. Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development, 4 (2), 203-211.
Gralton, A., Sinclair, M. & Purnell, K. (2004). Changes in attitudes, beliefs and behaviour: A
critical review of research into the impacts of environmental education initiatives.
Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20 (2), 41-52.
Guler, T. (2009). The effects of an ecology based environmental education on teachers‘
opinions about environmental education. Education and Science, 34 (151), 30-42.
Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/viewFile/606/85.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. New York: State
University of New York Press.
20
Huckle, J. (1991). Education for sustainability: Assessing pathways to the future. Australian
Journal of Environmental Education, 7, 49–69.
Harrison, S. (2010). ‗Why we are here?‘ Taking ‗place‘ into account in UK outdoor
environmental education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 10
(1), 3-18. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/doi/pdf/10.1080/14729671003669321.
Irwin, D. (2010). Weaving the threads of education for sustainability and outdoor education.
Published PhD Thesis, 2010, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Retrieved from
http://www.signsofchange.org.nz/abode/685/documents/14_David_Irwin_Outdoor%20Educatio
n%20CPIT.pdf.
Kahn, R., (2010). Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, & Planetary Crisis. New York: Peter Lang
Publishing, Inc.
Keles, O., Uzun, N., Varnaci- Uzun, F. (2010). The change of teacher candidates‘
environmental consciousness, attitude, thought and behaviors with nature training
project and the assessment of its permanence. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9
(32), 384-401. Retrieved from http://www.naimuzun.com/yayinlar/kelesuzunuzun.pdf.
Lugg, A. & Slattery, D. (2003). Use of national park for outdoor environmental education: An
Australian case study. Journal of Adventure Education& Outdoor Learning, 3 (1), 77-
92. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/doi/pdf/10.1080/14729670385200261.
McNeil, J. D. (1996). Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York: HarperCollins
College Publishers.
Morgan, S. P., Hamilton, S. P., Bentley, M. L., & Myrie, S. (2009). Environmental education
in botanic gardens: Exploring Brooklyn Botanic Garden‘s project green reach. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 40 (4), 35- 52.
Okur, E. (2012). Outdoor Experiential Education: Ecology Application. PhD Thesis,
Canakkale (Gallipoli) Onsekiz Mart University, Institute of Educational Science.
21
Ozden, M. (2008). Environmental awareness and attitudes of student teachers: an empirical
research, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17
(1), 2008, 40-55.
Payne, P. (2002). Post-metatheorizing environmental behaviours in environmental education.
Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 307-314, Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145456.
Palmberg, I. E.& Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental
responsibility. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31 (4), 32-36. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=09-26-
2016&FMT=7&DID=59564817&RQT=309.
Petrina, S. (2000). The political ecology of design and technology education: an inquiry into
methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 207–237.
Piller, N. (2002). Outdoor education: A dialogue between theory and practice, and
implementation suggestions for the Discovery 10 Program at St. George’s School. The
University of British Columbia, The Faculty of Education Department of Curriculum
Studies, Master of Arts Thesis, Canada. Retrieved from
https://dspace.library.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/13379/ubc_20020534.pdf?sequence=1.
Powers, D. L. (2004). The Effects of An Outdoor Education Program on Life Effectiviness
Skills of Participant. Master of Science Thesis, California State University, USA.
Preston, L. (2004). Making connection with nature: Bridging the theory- practice gap in
outdoor and environmental education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8 (1),
12-19. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/pqdlink?vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-
1&ver=1&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1060181621&exp=09-24-
2016&scaling=FULL&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1317074552&clientId=8119.
Preston, L.& Griffiths, A. (2004). Pedagogy of connections: Findings of a collaborative
action research project in outdoor and environmental education. Australian Journal of
Outdoor Education, 8 (2), 36-45. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/fullText;dn=139846;res=AEIPT.
22
Preston, L. (2011). Green pedagogy – guidance and doubt in teaching Outdoor and
Environmental Education, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (4), 367-380.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.614686.
Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education. A matter of many relationships. Journal of
Environmental Education, 17 (3), 13- 15.
Robinson, G. H. (2008). The Fragments of Frustration in Building Academic Literacy for
College-Bound African-American Students: Implications for the Use of Outdoor
Education. PhD Thesis, George Mason University, USA.
Robottom, I. (2005). Critical environmental education research: Re-engaging the debate.
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, Spring 2005, 62-78. Retrieved from
http://openjournal.lakeheadu.ca/index.php/cjee/article/viewFile/178/15.
Shanely, S. D. (2006). Towards An Understanding Of An Outdoor Education Program:
Listening To Participants’ Stories. PhD Thesis, University of Florida, USA.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluations models. New Directions for Evaluation, Spring 2001
89, 7-98. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/doi/10.1002/ev.3/pdf.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research Analysis Type& Software Tools. London: Routledge.
Thomas, G. (2005). Traditional adventure activities in outdoor environmental education,
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 9 (1), 31-39. Retrieved from
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/education/downloads/thomas_g_ajoe_v9n1_thomas.pdf.
Thomashow, M. (1998). Ecological Identity: Becoming a Reflective Environmentalist (3rd
Edition). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Tsai, J.T. (2006). The Identification Of The Components For An Outdoor Education
Curriculum In Taiwan. PhD Thesis, Indiana University, USA.
UNESCO (1977). International Conference on Environmental Eductaion, Final Report,
Tbilisi 14-26 October 1977, Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/EE-
Tbilisi_1977.pdf.
23
Vidich, A. J. (1955). Participant Observation and the Collection and Interpretation of Data.
The American Journal of Sociology, 60 (4), 354-360. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772028.
Ward, K. S. (1996). EE teacher inservice education: The need for new perspectives. Journal
of Environmental Education, 27 (2), 11-17. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/ehost/detail?sid=319bf1b4-ad90-42c2-
9f11a4dd76ff4e09%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ
%3d%3d#db=pbh&AN=9604111674.
Yalcin- Ozdilek, S., Ozdilek, H. G., Okur, E., Eryaman, M. Y. (2011). Community and nature
as currıculum: A case study of an outdoor environmental education project, The
International Journal of Educational Researchers, 3 (1), 33-45. Retrieved from
http://www.eab.org.tr/public/ijer/3/1/sukran_yalcin_ozdilek.pdf.
Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2006). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Science. Ankara:
Seckin Publication.
Zanovello, I. (1999). Outdoor and Environmental Education Centres: A Case Study of
Starthcona Park Lodge and Outdoor Education Centre, British Columbia, Canada. A
Master Degree Thesis, Faculty of Envirnmental Design, The University of Calgary,
Alberta.
24
Appendix 1. Theme of project program and activity names within the project
Theme
Activity names
I. Abiotic
factors
1. Astrophysics and Formation of the universe
2. Geological structure and history of Canakkale province
3. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) applications and usage in nature
II. Biotic
factors
4. Fauna of Canakkale and its environs,
5. Endemic plants in Canakkale,
6. Role of insects in protection of nature
III. Specific
properties
of area
7. Water quality and aquatic organisms
8. Forest ecosystems& Definition of vegetation and types
9. Underwater and marine ecology& Diving with tube
10. Importance of food supply from nature in Canakkale
IV. Human
pressure on
ecosystem
11. Naturally-occurring and human-enriched magnetism and environmental
health
12. Local bottled water factory and Atikhisar Dam
13. ―Can 18 Mart‖ thermal power plant
14. Making compost from domestic organic waste
15. Ethnobotany
16. Troy National Park from prehistoric times to the present
17. Importance of Canakkale from historical perspective (Gallipoli War)
18. Development of national parks using protective and utilization measures
19. Environmentally correct urban planning in Canakkale
20. Ecotourism
21.Deep ecology
22. Our Ecological Footprints: How We Used to Live a Century Ago
25
Appendix 2. First period of the project program
Date
Hours
Activity Names
Activity Place
Lecturers
27.07. 2009
8:30-9:30
Enter Speech& Pre-
writings
Motel
Res. Ass. Emel Okur
Assis. Prof. Dr. Zeynep
Cetinkaya Edizer
27.07. 2009
09:30-10:30
First Aid
Motel
Dr. Yıldız Cıcek
27.07. 2009
10:45-13:00
14
Motel Kitchen
Assis. Prof. Dr. Akin Alten
27.07. 2009
11:00-19:00
2
Ayazma – Bayramic
Prof. Dr. Erdinc Yigitbas
28.07.2009
08:30-10:00
10
Ezine
Assis. Prof. Dr. Kurban Yasar
28.07.2009
11:00-13:00
15
Ayvacik
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ismet Uysal
28.07.2009
14:00-20:00
8
Dalak Water
Dr. Sukru Oner
29.07.2009
08:00-13:30
7
Karamenderes River–
Pınarbasi Village,
Karamenderes River
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sukran
Yalcin-Ozdilek
29.07.2009
14:30-18:30
16
Troy National Park
Assis. Prof. Dr. Rustem
Aslan
29.07.2009
19:00-20:30
18
Tevfikiye Village
Assis. Prof. Dr. Fusun
Erduran
30.07. 2009
9:00-12:45
5
Guzelyali
Dr. Ersin Karabacak
30.07. 2009
14:00-20:00
3
Dardanelle
Assis. Prof. Dr. Oznur Karaca
31.07.2009
08:30-12:00
4
Dardanelle
Prof. Dr. Varol Tok
31.07.2009
13:00-18:00
19
Streets of Suburb
Assis. Prof. Dr. Arzu
Basaran-Uysal
01.08.2009
8:00-10:00
Diving with tube (9)
Bozcada Island
Dr. Cuneyt Bircan
01.08.2009
10:00-13:00
20
Bozcada Island
Assis. Prof. Dr. Ferah Ozkok
01.08.2009
13:15-19:30
9
Bozcada Island
Assis. Prof. Dr. Muhammet
Turkoglu
02.08.2009
09:00-12:00
6
Intepe
Assis. Prof. Dr. Burak Polat
02.08.2009
13:00-
16:00
11
Intepe- Wind Tribune
Assis. Prof. Dr. Sevil Yalcin
02.08.2009
18:00-21:00
22
Motel
Assis. Prof. Dr. Hasan
Goksel Ozdilek
03.08.2009
08:00-20:30
17
Gallipoli National
Park
Assis. Prof. Dr. Ahmet
Esenkaya
04.08.2009
09:00-10:00
12
Canakkale-Can
Motorway
Assis. Prof. Dr. Hasan
Goksel Ozdilek
04.08.2009
11:00-18:00
13
Can Town
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alper Baba
04.08.2009
18:15-20:15
21
Motel
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sukran
Yalcin-Ozdilek
04.08.2009
21:00-22:30
1
Ulupinar Observatory
Prof. Dr. Osman Demircan
05.08.2009
09:00-11:00
14
Motel Garden
Assis. Prof. Dr. Akin Alten
05.08.2009
11:30-13:00
Appreciation Speech&
Post-writings
Motel
Res. Ass. Emel Okur
Assis. Prof. Dr. Zeynep
Cetinkaya Edizer
