A case study on teaching of energy as a subject for 9th graders

A systematic review of energy literacy programs at primary and middle schools

“…None of the papers published in 2011 and 2020 met the eligibility criteria, hence excluded from the synthesis stage (Figure 2). Based on the paper distribution by country in which the studies were conducted, the majority of the papers (61%) were conducted more than once: in the US these included (Bernstein & Puttick, 2014;Bodzin et al, 2013;Hestness et al, 2019;Ouariachi et al, 2019;Zangori & Cole, 2019), in Taiwan (Chao et al, 2017;Chou et al, 2015;Lee et al, 2013;Tsai, 2013), UK (Avramides et al, 2016;Fleming et al, 2019;Walshe, 2017), in Australia (Lewis et al, 2014;Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014), and in Turkey (Bezen et al, 2017;Ercan et al, 2017). The rest of the studies were conducted once, including those conducted in Germany (Sellmann & Bogner, 2013), Spain (Samperiz & Herrero, 2018), Greece (Sissamperi & Koliopoulos, 2021), Sweden (Ojala, 2012), South Korea (Cho & Lee, 2018), Thailand (Chokriensukchai & Tamang, 2010), Portugal (Barata et al, 2017), New Zealand (Aguirre-Bielschowsky et al, 2017), Malaysia (Karpudewan et al, 2015), dan Finland (Ratinen, 2013).…”

“…The second most commonly used for that study topic was the qualitative approach (27%), including (Aguirre-Bielschowsky et al, 2017;Avramides et al, 2016;Hestness et al, 2019;Lewis et al, 2014;Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014;Ouariachi et al, 2019;Walshe, 2017). In addition to those two approaches, mixed methods were also used for energy literacy studies, although their use accounted for only 19% of the studies, including (Bezen et al, 2017;Karpudewan et al, 2015;Ratinen, 2013;Sissamperi & Koliopoulos, 2021;Zangori & Cole, 2019). The studies used either of the grounded theory, qualitative case study, experimental, explanatory sequential, and embedded design methods (Figure 4)…”

“…The environmental issues included energy conservation (Aguirre-Bielschowsky et al, 2017;Bernstein & Puttick, 2014), energy consumption (Avramides et al, 2016;Ercan et al, 2017), energy saving and carbon reduction (ESCR) (Chao et al, 2017;Lee et al, 2013), global warming (Chokriensukchai & Tamang, 2010;Karpudewan et al, 2015), renewable energy (Chou et al, 2015), greenhouse gas emissions (Fleming et al, 2019;Ratinen, 2013), climate change (Fleming et al, 2019;Hestness et al, 2019;Karpudewan et al, 2015;Ojala, 2012;Ouariachi et al, 2019;Ratinen, 2013;Sellmann & Bogner, 2013), energy generation systems (Sissamperi & Koliopoulos, 2021). Meanwhile, the educational issues consisted of environmental education (Barata et al, 2017;Cho & Lee, 2018;Samperiz & Herrero, 2018), education for sustainability (Lewis et al, 2014;Walshe, 2017), ecology literacy (Zangori & Cole, 2019), energy literacy (Bodzin et al, 2013;Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014), science education (Bezen et al, 2017), and e-learning (Tsai, 2013).. According to the issues or contexts underlying the studies, the series of activities performed at school, at home, and in the community included development of integrated curricula based on geospatial technologies (Bodzin et al, 2013) and the curricula of geography (Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014), physics (Bezen et al, 2017), and earth science subjects (Chao et al, 2017), sustainability concepts in the geography subject …”

“…Meanwhile, the educational issues consisted of environmental education (Barata et al, 2017;Cho & Lee, 2018;Samperiz & Herrero, 2018), education for sustainability (Lewis et al, 2014;Walshe, 2017), ecology literacy (Zangori & Cole, 2019), energy literacy (Bodzin et al, 2013;Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014), science education (Bezen et al, 2017), and e-learning (Tsai, 2013).. According to the issues or contexts underlying the studies, the series of activities performed at school, at home, and in the community included development of integrated curricula based on geospatial technologies (Bodzin et al, 2013) and the curricula of geography (Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014), physics (Bezen et al, 2017), and earth science subjects (Chao et al, 2017), sustainability concepts in the geography subject (Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014), energy generation systems materials (Sissamperi & Koliopoulos, 2021), social norm message instilling using postcards (Bernstein & Puttick, 2014), music festival (Fleming et al, 2019), socio-culture in the community (Hestness et al, 2019), persuasive commitment to maintaining the environment at a botanical garden (Barata et al, 2017), emissions reduction commitment and school activities involving school members (Lewis et al, 2014), climate change laboratory activities based on 5E (engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation) learning cycle (Karpudewan et al, 2015)concerted societal effort has been taken to address it (e.g. by means of the science curriculum, and authentic energy saving activities at school and at home (Aguirre-Bielschowsky et al, 2017;Lee et al, 2013).…”

“…The majority of the studies (53%) were conducted only at school (Bezen et al, 2017;Bodzin et al, 2013;Chao et al, 2017;Cho & Lee, 2018;Chou et al, 2015;Ercan et al, 2017;Karpudewan et al, 2015;Maddock & Kriewaldt, 2014;Ojala, 2012;Ouariachi et al, 2019;Ratinen, 2013;Sissamperi & Koliopoulos, 2021;Tsai, 2013;Zangori & Cole, 2019). Energy literacy studies that were conducted both at school and at home accounted for 15% of all the studies (Avramides et al, 2016;Lee et al, 2013;Lewis et al, 2014;Walshe, 2017), and so did those that were conducted both at school and in the community (Barata et al, 2017;Hestness et al, 2019;Samperiz & Herrero, 2018;Sellmann & Bogner, 2013).…”