Determination of Teacher Candidates’ Awareness of Environmental Ethics

Abstract

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The Examination of Relationship Between the Approaches to Environmental Ethics and Environmental Behaviours of Teacher Candidates by Different Variables

“…It is seen that ecocentric approaches to environmental ethics are at a good level (I agree), which mean they have an environmentalist approach that takes into account the environment in terms of all living and non-living entities. Similar results were obtained in some studies conducted with teacher candidates (Çolak, 2017;Güriçin, Sevinç, 2020;Karakuş & Çimen, 2020;Özdemir, 2012;Rachmatullah, Lee, Ha, 2020;Sönmez, 2019), which points out that the teacher candidates adopt an environmentalist approach and take into account the importance of all beings living in the environment.…”

“…The fact that these subjects are constantly being addressed as part of the education provided to the teacher candidates is considered to be effective. Similarly, in the studies conducted by Güriçin and Sevinç (2020), Tan (2014) and Sönmez (2019), it was observed that science teacher candidates had higher level of ethical approaches to the environment, while another study conducted with prospective science and primary school teachers (Sönmez, 2019) determined that the department was not effective. In another study conducted with students studying in economics, sociology, psychology and biology departments, no difference was found in terms of department (Özdemir, 2012).…”

“…In terms of environmental behaviours, it is understood that females are more environmentally friendly in their physical protection behaviour and individual and social persuasion behaviours. Although there are studies concluding that gender is not effective in terms of environmental behaviour (Erbasan & Erkol, 2020;Karakaya, Avgın & Yılmaz, 2018;Karakaya, Avgın & Yılmaz, 2018;Karakuş & Çimen, 2020Karakuş & Çimen, Özdemir, 2012Sungur, 2017), they indicate that females have a more friendly approach to the environment than males (Fernandez Manzanal, Rodriguez-Barreiro and Carrasquer, 2007;Güriçin, Sevinç, 2020;Karakaya and Yılmaz, 2017;Keleş and Özer, 2020;Plavsic, 2013;Sönmez, 2020;Sönmez, 2019;Zelezny, Chua and Aldrich, 2000). Ecofeminist literature suggests that females relate to the environment at a more empathetic level and there are gender differences in human relationships (Bloodhart & Swim, 2010;Stephens, Jacobson, & King, 2010).…”

“…While no ecocentric difference was observed in the studies of Karakuş and Çimen (2020), it was determined that the anthropocentric tendencies of the teacher candidates living in rural areas were higher. In some studies conducted with prospective teachers, it was concluded that place of residence did not make a difference in prospective teachers' environmental awareness (Güriçin & Sevinç, 2020), environmental ethics (Dikicil, 2018 or environmental awareness level (Erol & Gezer, 2006;Yalçın, 2009). The research by Plavsic (2013) determined that students who are part of the campus life have an environmentalist approach at a similar level with those who live with their families.…”