Compare the effects of teaching environmental issues by participatory image-concept method and conventional method on learning, retention and nature relatedness (NR) of fifth grade students

Subject Areas : Research in Curriculum Planning

farokh faizi ¹ , Hossein Mahdizadeh ² , Shirzad Aghaei ³

1 - Department of Instructional Technology, Kermanshah Branch of Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.
2 - Department of Instructional Technology, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
3 - Department of Instructional Technology, Kermanshah Branch of Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.

Received: 2017-10-17 Accepted : 2017-10-17 Published : 2017-05-22

Keywords: image concept, Naturalism, fifth grade, the common method, learning retention,

Abstract :

This study aims to investigate and compare the effect of implementing the teaching model of partnership image concept and common method of teaching on learning and retention of environmental concepts and the amount of naturalism among students of elementary school fifth grade. The methodology of a survey was semi-experimental with pretest and posttest carried out for the control group. The population included elementary fifth-grade students in the city of Mahidasht, Kermanshah in the school year of 1391-92 and the sample included 38 persons in two classes and was chosen according to principle random assignment of subjects in groups. In both groups (treatment and control) the subjects witnessed the concept of human relation and the environment using the method of concept image based on based on partnership and common methods, respectively. To collect data, the teacher-made test of learning, retention and the scale of having relation with nature by Nesbit and et al (2009) were used. The validity was confirmed based on the idea of experts’ and the reliability was calculated according to a retesting method as well as correlation equal to 79%. The survey results showed that the learning and retention functionality of students taught with partnership image concept model were higher than other group and in terms of naturalism; the treatment subjects had the more positive viewpoint on nature than the control group.

References:

3. Darling-Hammond, l. & Young, p. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25. 5. Duerden, Mat D. Witt, Peter A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol 30, No 4, 379-392. 6. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 161-202. 8. Harris, P. G. (2006). Environmental Perspectives and Behavior in China: Synopsis and Bibliography. Environment and Behaviour. 38(1), 5-21 9. Hassan, Arba’at. Zaid Ismail, Mohd. (2011). the infusion of Environmental Education (EE) in chemistry teaching and students’ awareness and attitudes towards environment in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, No 15, 3404–3409. 10. Ignatow, G. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society: Reconsidering environmental Attitudes and Concern. Environment and Behavior. 38(4), 441-461 11. Kaiser, F., S. Wolfing, and U. Fuhrer. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1–19. 12. Kollmuss, Anja. Agyeman, Julian. (2002). Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, Vol8, No 3, 239-260. 13. Lateh, Habibah. Muniandy, Punitha. (2010). Environmental education (EE): current situational and the challenges among trainee teachers at teachers training institute in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, No 2, 1896-1900. 14. Martin, W. W., Falk, J. H. and Balling, J. D. (1981). Environmental effects on learning: the outdoor field trip. Science Education, 65(3), 301–309. 15. Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. (2007). the non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139, nos. 1–2: 67–82. 16. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge university press. 18. Nisbet, E. k. Zelenski, J. M & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 5, pp 715-740. 19. North American association for environment education. (2011). Excellence in environmental education, guidelines for learning K-12, exective summary and self-assessment tool, Washington D. C. Available in: http://resources.spaces3.com/89c197bf-e630-42b0-ad9a-91f0bc55c72d.pdf 20. Olofsson, A. & Ohman, S. (2006). General beliefs and environmental concern: Translate Comparisons. Environment and Behavior. 38(6), 768-790 21. Onal, Hakan. Kizilcaoglu, Alaattin. (2011). the contribution of cooperative learning approach to the awareness of environment in Geography. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, No 19, 427–433. 22. Rajecki, D. W. (1982). Attitudes: themes and advances. Sunderland, Mass: Sinaver associates. 23. Regan, D. T., & Fazio, R. H. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 38–45. 25. Sayed Abdullah, Sharifah Intan Sharina. Halim, lilia. (2010). Development of instrument measuring the level of teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in environmental education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, No 9, 174-178. 26. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

_||_