an evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in turkey through rasch analysis

27
This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Twente] On: 29 November 2014, At: 16:11 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Environmental Education Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20 An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis G. Tuncer Teksoz a , J.W. Boone b , O. Yilmaz Tuzun a & C. Oztekin a a Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. b Department of Educational Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA. Published online: 07 Mar 2013. To cite this article: G. Tuncer Teksoz, J.W. Boone, O. Yilmaz Tuzun & C. Oztekin (2014) An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis, Environmental Education Research, 20:2, 202-227, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.768604 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.768604 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. 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. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: c

Post on 03-Apr-2017

220 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Twente]On: 29 November 2014, At: 16:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

An evaluation of the environmentalliteracy of preservice teachers inTurkey through Rasch analysisG. Tuncer Teksoza, J.W. Booneb, O. Yilmaz Tuzuna & C. Oztekina

a Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education,Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.b Department of Educational Psychology, Miami University, Oxford,OH, USA.Published online: 07 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: G. Tuncer Teksoz, J.W. Boone, O. Yilmaz Tuzun & C. Oztekin (2014) Anevaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis,Environmental Education Research, 20:2, 202-227, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.768604

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.768604

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachersin Turkey through Rasch analysis

G. Tuncer Teksoza*, J.W. Booneb, O. Yilmaz Tuzuna and C. Oztekina

aFaculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Ankara, Turkey; bDepartment of Educational Psychology, Miami University,Oxford, OH, USA

(Received 5 March 2012; final version received 14 January 2013)

The purpose of this study was to make use of proposed definitions of environ-mental literacy to (1) guide the application of Rasch analysis and (2) utilize thedeveloped instrumentation to further inform the work of environmental educa-tors. A total of 2311 preservice teachers attending Faculty of Education depart-ments of four public universities located in the capital city of Turkey provideddata for this study. The instrument used included a knowledge scale, an attitudescale, an attitude towards environmental responsibility scale and a concern scale.Rasch analysis revealed which those items which address the environmentalknowledge widely broadcasted by mass media also were answered correctly bymost participants. Generally, instrument items that addressed the understandingof the interrelated nature of environmental knowledge were answered incorrectlyby participants. Analysis of attitude and attitude towards environmental respon-sibility scales indicated that the preservice teachers exhibited the most supportfor plant and animal rights, environmental protection laws and ecological bal-ance. Results of the concern scale suggested that the preservice teachers weremost concerned with regard to issues of poor drinking-water quality. Genderanalysis revealed different orientations among females and males in terms ofknowledge, attitudes, attitude towards environmental responsibility and concernscales.

Keywords: environmental literacy; gender; Rasch analysis; preservice teachers

Introduction

Few would argue with the assertion that human beings greatly impact the environ-ment, and that human impact upon the environment must be addressed in somemanner in a variety of venues. Certainly, there are many techniques that can be uti-lized in order to improve the environment regarding both immediate environmentalissues (e.g. water shortage, air pollution, etc.) as well as long term issues (e.g. glo-bal warming, deforestation, etc.). One avenue of addressing the improvement ofenvironmental issues is consideration of the development of people’s environmentalliteracy (EL); ‘[T]he more people with even elementary environmental literacy thebetter will be the quality of environment’ (Roth 1992, 35).

In this paper, we presented an analysis of a unique data set (n= 2000+), whichprovided a snapshot of selected EL components in a rapidly developing country,

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Environmental Education Research, 2014Vol. 20, No. 2, 202–227, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.768604

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Turkey. The subjects selected for this study, preservice teachers, will play a criticalrole in Turkey in that they will be responsible for the education of a significant pro-portion of the young people in the twenty-first century Turkey. The results of thisresearch can be used to provide guidance to those countries and regions (similar toTurkey) attempting to simultaneously industrialize and protect the environment andthose already threatens by global environmental problems (such as climate change).Specific suggestions for fostering EL are provided in light of the data set andanalysis of this study.

Literature review

EL has traditionally been considered a goal of environmental education (see Roth1992). This perspective has been impacted by numerous declarations of key interna-tional conventions in the history of environmental education. An example is a land-mark conference that was held in 1972, under the auspices of the United Nations(United Nations–Stockholm Conference; UNEP 1972). This conference consideredthe need for a common outlook and common principles concerning humans and theenvironment. Another watershed document was the charter developed at a workshopsponsored jointly by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Orga-nization and United Nations Environment Program (UNESCO/UNEP) in Belgrade,Yugoslavia, in October 1975, which declared that:

Environmental education is a process aimed at developing a world population that isaware of and concerned about the total environment and its associated problems, andwhich has the knowledge, attitudes, motivations, commitments, and skills to workindividually and collectively towards solutions of current problems and the preventionof new ones. (UNESCO/UNEP 1975, 3)

Certainly in this declaration, as well as other numerous efforts that have followed,EL is considered a major prerequisite for making better environmental decisions (beit at the microlevel of a neighbourhood or at the more macrolevel of a society).Now, for a number of decades, numerous scholars have discussed the meaning anddetails of EL. After being first mentioned by Roth (1968) and Harvey (1977)defined EL as the expected outcome of environmental education and identified threelevels of literacy as environmentally literate, environmentally competent, and envi-ronmentally dedicated (cited in McBeth and Volk 2009).

One particular significant effort, which impacted our study, was the work ofDisinger and Roth (1992) who specifically considered the dimensionality of EL. Intheir EL Digest, Disinger and Roth (1992, 2) summarized the different definitionsof EL and defined the EL as the capacity to perceive and interpret the relativehealth of environmental systems and take appropriate action to maintain, restore, orimprove the health of those systems. They further stated that EL has its roots in (a)the interrelationships between natural and social system, (b) the unity of humankind with nature, (c) technology and the making of choice, and (d) developmentallearning throughout the human life cycle (Disinger and Roth 1992, 5). According toauthors, EL rested on environmental sensitivity, knowledge, skills, attitudes and val-ues, personal investment and responsibility, and active involvement. In this defini-tion, sensitivity and attitudes and values are subsumed under the term ‘affect’ whilepersonal investment and responsibility and active involvement are subsumed under

Environmental Education Research 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

the term ‘behaviour’ which creates four strands – knowledge, skills, affect, andbehaviour – to be addressed in education for EL (Roth 1992, 9). Since these 1992publications, environmental knowledge, environmental responsibility, environmentalattitude and environmental behaviour have been considered central components ofEL.

Certainly, researchers have not accepted one common definition of EL (Mor-rone, Mancl, and Carr 2001), although there seems to be broad consensus as to keydimensions of EL such as those mentioned above. Another particular importanteffort occurred in the middle of the 1990s, when Simmons (1995) developed an ELFramework. That framework focuses on the following dimensions: cognitive(knowledge and skills), affective, environmentally responsible behaviour, andinvolvement in environmentally responsible behaviour (the North American Associ-ation of Environmental Educators [NAAEE], EL Framework –Revised, 23 April1994). In 2008, McBeth, Hungerford, Marcinkowski, Volk, and Meyers, describedEL component as environmental sensitivity, ecological knowledge, environmentalemotions (attitudes), issue and action skills, verbal commitment (willingness to act)and actual commitment (behaviour). In a more recent document, NAAEE (2011)identified four interrelated components of EL which are knowledge, dispositions,competencies, and environmentally responsible behaviour. These key elements ofEL reported to be interactive and developmental in nature, meaning that individuals,whether environmentally literate or not, develop along a continuum of literacy overtime; that is, EL continues to evolve.

Progress in defining EL also has been accompanied by advances in investigat-ing/discussing EL as a function of society and culture and, generally, exploring thecomplex mix of issues that impact the field. While some studies conducted withcollege students and older adults (e.g. Goldman, Yavetz, and Peer 2006; Michail,Stamou, and Stamou 2006; O’Brein 2007; Robinson and Crowther 2001), othersconducted with young students (e.g. Chu et al. 2007; McBeth et al. 2008; Negevet al. 2008). Most of the research with young students, on the other hand, resultedwith children possessing lack of knowledge especially for human and environmentbut positive attitudes towards environment in general. For example, Chu et al.(2007) examined EL levels of Grade 3 Korean children. As far as environmentalknowledge is concerned, children reported to lack knowledge related to the relation-ship between plants and animals, food chains, energy sources and the roles of unat-tractive animals. Children were found to be familiar with air pollution and waterpollution. The environmental attitude and behaviour dimensions, however, demon-strated that children were not responsive to environmental issues. In Negev et al.’s(2008) research with Grade 6 and 12 Israeli students, ethnic and socio-economicproperties were found to be moderately related to EL. A study of Makki, Abd-el-Khalick and Boujaoude (2003) with Lebanese high school students (Grade 10 and11) showed that students had favourable environmental attitudes yet lacked in theirenvironmental knowledge base. Environmental knowledge was found to be corre-lated with education level of parent, as well as to students’ attitude towards envi-ronment, affect, beliefs and behavioural commitments. Among such studies, oneconducted by Morrone, Mancl, and Carr (2001) highlights how EL may be morethan just knowledge about the environment, but rather a combination of knowledge,attitudes/values and skills (behaviour) that contribute to high level of literacy. Thisperspective very much is aligned with that of previous research efforts (Ballantyneand Packer 1996; Hungerford and Volk 1990). The Morrone, Mancl, and Carr

204 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

(2001) study focused on the ecological knowledge level (as one component of EL)of different groups of citizens in Ohio (USA), members of the general public,including an oversample of minorities and low income citizens, as well as studentsin an introductory environmental health class. Study results suggested a significantdifference between the opinion of a specific group about their state’s environment,world view in accordance to environmental issues and ecological knowledge. Theauthors reported on the complicated relationship between baseline environmentalknowledge and general concern for the environment.

While research concerning EL has involved many parts of society and cultures,one of the most frequent sampled parts of ‘society’ has been teachers. This is per-haps not surprising given that teachers (and curriculum taught by teachers) canexpose students to a range of environmental issues and concerns. Hsu and Roth(1999), for example, assessed Taiwanese secondary teachers’ EL and reported thatTaiwanese teachers’ knowledge of environmental action strategies; environmentalresponsibility and environmental attitudes were the best predictors of their intentionto engage in responsible environmental behaviour. In a similar vein, Israeli research-ers conducted a series of studies to examine the preservice teachers’ EL in threemajor teacher-training colleges. The first study by Goldman, Yavetz, and Peer(2006) showed a significant effect of mother’s education level on preservice teach-ers’ engagement in recycling behaviour. Specifically, students whose mothers hadhigh school education involved in recycling behaviour less than did students whosemothers obtained higher levels of education. Their EL level, however, was found tobe low. The second study by Peer, Goldman, and Yavetz (2007) demonstrated apositive association between the environmental knowledge and environmental atti-tudes of the first-year students and their mothers’ education level. In particular, thedifference was found between students whose mother had a high school educationor less and students whose mothers had a college education. Participants’ environ-mental knowledge, however, was reported to be limited. Yavetz, Goldman andPe’er’s (2009) longitudinal study revealed, however, that although both beginningand advanced students’ attitudes towards environment were positive, their environ-mental knowledge level remained inadequate. Authors concluded that academicstudies did not have an influential role in preservice teachers’ EL level and pointedout the relevance of personal qualifications and different background variables asdetermining factors.

Among EL works, it is also possible to face with a number of models that havebeen proposed germane to EL research, as, for example, in the case for the one pro-posed by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002). The authors proposed a model for explain-ing the gap between the possession of environmental knowledge and environmentalawareness. Pro-environmental behaviour in this study was displayed by means ofincorporating several factors, including internal factors (e.g. motivation, pro-environ-mental knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes, emotions, locus of control, responsi-bilities and priorities) as well as demographic and external ones (e.g. institutional,economic, social and cultural). The authors pointed out the necessity of making adistinction between different levels of knowledge and mentioned that individual musthave a basic knowledge regarding environmental issues and the behaviours whichcause them in order to act pro-environmentally in a conscious way. However, theydid not attribute a direct relationship with environmental knowledge and pro-envi-ronmental behaviour and stated that ‘we see environmental knowledge, values, andattitudes, together with emotional involvement as making up a complex we call

Environmental Education Research 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

“pro-environmental consciousness”. Jensen (2002) offered comments and sugges-tions for an elaboration of the model proposed by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002).In his article, Jensen discussed the concept of knowledge per se and its position inworking with environmental problems and tried to illuminate the link betweenknowledge, and behavioural change and action. In fact, Jensen (2002) agreed withKollmuss and Agyeman (2002) that knowledge does not per se result in environ-mental action or behavioural change. Therefore, according to him (329),

If the main goal of environmental education is the development of the student’s abilityto act and effect change, it follows that associated knowledge and insight should inessence to be action-oriented. This has significant consequences for the kind of knowl-edge that will be the focus of planning, implementing and evaluating teaching andlearning in environmental education

In their model, they define four distinct tenets of action-oriented knowledge whichshow different perspective on the types of knowledge through which a given envi-ronmental problem can be perceived and analysed, namely, knowledge abouteffects, knowledge about root causes, knowledge about strategies for change andknowledge about alternatives and visions (see also Jensen and Schnack 2006). Morerecently, Tsevreni (2011) has proposed an alternative approach for organizing theexploration of environmental issues. This approach focuses on children’s ideas andaction rather than scientific knowledge. The approach was based on children’s will-ingness and ability to act and participate in their community and environment.

In addition to the aforementioned studies, a number of scholars have investi-gated EL of Turkish respondents. While some of researchers were studied by ele-mentary students (Erdogan 2009; Erdogan and Ok 2011; Istanbullu 2008; Okesli2008; Varisli 2009), others interested in determining both pre- and in-service teach-ers’ EL level (Kahyaoglu 2011; Tuncer et al. 2009). For example, Tuncer et al.(2009) investigated EL of preservice teachers in one of the largest public universi-ties in Turkey. The results of the canonical analysis indicated that as preserviceteachers’ interest in environmental problems increase, their environmental knowl-edge and concern level also increase. Likewise, preservice teachers who viewedenvironmental problems among the most important problems being faced by socie-ties appear to be more knowledgeable about environmental issues and to expressmore environmental concern. Moreover, female preservice teachers in Turkey foundto have more positive attitudes and undertake more pro-environmental actionsregarding the environment than their male counterparts. By using 1345 Turkish uni-versity students, Teksoz, Sahin, and Oztekin-Tekkaya (2012) proposed an EL Com-ponents Model to elucidate the interplay among environmental attitudes,environmental responsibility, environmental concern, environmental knowledge andoutdoor activities. The structural equation model indicated that high levels of envi-ronmental knowledge influence student’s concern, attitudes, as well as personalresponsibility towards environmental protection. In their study, particularly, environ-mental knowledge was found to be a significant predictor of environmental concern,attitudes and responsibility. While environmental concern reported to be signifi-cantly related to both environmental attitudes and outdoor activities, environmentattitudes were found to be a significant determinant of environmental responsibility.In another related study, Varisli (2009) examined middle school students’ EL leveland determined the effects of gender, parents’ educational level, parents’ work status,as well as a source of information about environmental knowledge on students’

206 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

EL. Although participants’ environmental knowledge together with their sense ofresponsibility and attitudes towards the environment were found to be unimpressive,they seemed to be highly concerned about environmental problems and issues.While gender had a significant effect on environmental concern, parents’ educa-tional level and mothers’ work status had significant effects on environmentalknowledge components of EL. Source of environmental information, on the otherhand, was not a significant variable in students’ EL. As a part of their study, Alpet al. (2008) examined how self-reported environmentally friendly behaviour isassociated with elementary schools students’ (N= 1140) environmental knowledge,behavioural intentions, environmental affects and locus of control. According tomodel proposed, behavioural intentions, environmental affects and locus of controlfound to be significant predictors of self-reported environmentally friendly behav-iours. However, no statistically positive relationship was found between environ-mental knowledge and environmentally friendly behaviours.

Although there are of course differences in nuances of the past environmentalresearch which has been conducted to date, a general commonality (of the above-outlined research as well as other research) can be summarized by means of Mor-rone, Mancl, and Carr’s (2001) declaration that, ‘EL is not just knowledge aboutthe environment but a combination of knowledge, attitudes/values, and skills(behaviour) that contribute to a high level of literacy’.

Evaluating the above-mentioned state of the art of EL research we designed aresearch to investigate preservice teachers’ EL in a Turkish sample by the use of anEL Questionnaire, building upon the framework constructed by Disinger and Roth(1992) and using Rasch analysis. In this context, we defined an environmentally lit-erate person as having an acceptable degree of knowledge, attitude towards environ-mental responsibility, attitudes and concern on the environmental issues andselected these four EL components for inclusion in this assessment and study. We,therefore, did not include and assess skills and/or behaviour as part of this study.The meanings we put on the above mentioned components of EL are describedbelow, as inspired from EL Framework – (Revised, 23 April 1994).

Acceptable degree of knowledge

Knowledge of ecological and socio-political issues, knowledge of and ability toidentify, analyse, investigate and evaluate environmental problems and issues, theinterrelationships between natural and social systems.

Acceptable (positive) attitudes

Recognition of the importance of environmental quality and the existence of envi-ronmental problems and issues; empathic, appreciative and caring attitude towardsthe environment; willingness to work towards the preservation and/or remediationof environmental problems and issues.

Attitude towards environmental responsibility

Belief in the ability, both individually and collectively, to influence outcomes ofenvironmental problems and issue, feeling responsibility for individual, governmen-tal and general actions that influence the environment.

Environmental Education Research 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Concern

Degree of engagement of attention, interest, or care about environmental problemsthat prompts to take precautions.

Research questions

Accordingly, the research questions of the current study have been set as:

RQ1: Is it advantageous to use Rasch measurement techniques to analyse an ELscale?

RQ2: What is the EL profile of preservice teachers who complete the EL scale?RQ3: What difference in preservice EL is exhibited as a function of gender?

Method

Sample

The study sample was drawn from four public universities located in Ankara, thecapital of Turkey. A total of 2311 students (69.1% female, 29.6% male, 1.3% didnot mention their gender, mean age = 22 years) attending to Faculty of Educationdepartments at each of these universities participated in the study. The sample con-sisted of 589 freshmen, 588 sophomores, 728 juniors and 341 seniors. A summaryof the demographic characteristics of the participants is provided in Table 1.

Instrument

The EL instrument (ELQ: environmental literacy questionnaire) used for datacollection was originally developed in English as part of a university project. Theproject title was MSU-WATER Social Assessment: Stakeholder Attitudes, Beliefs,and Uses of Water Resources (co-PI M.Kaplowitz and S. Witter, Michigan StateUniversity, 2001–2006).

However, a version of that instrument has been translated and adapted toTurkish conditions by Tuncer et al. (2009); it is this Turkish language translationthat was used for data collection. The original questionnaire, and subsequent

Table 1. Selected respondent demographics.

Characteristics N %

GenderMale 684 29.6Female 1597 69.1Total 2281 98.7Missing data 30 1.3Student statusFreshman 589 25.5Sophomore 588 25.4Junior 728 31.5Senior 341 14.8Graduate 45 1.9Missing data 20 0.9Mean age 22

208 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

versions of the instrument, was designed to assess four components of respondents’EL (knowledge, attitude, attitude towards environmental responsibility andconcern).

Utilizing the EL dimensions set by Disinger and Roth (1992), in this work,‘affects’ will be viewed as including environmental responsibility, attitudes, and val-ues. Furthermore, ‘behaviours’ will be viewed as encompassing ‘personal invest-ment’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘active involvement’.

The knowledge test used for the computation of person knowledge measuresincluded 12 multiple choice items developed to measure respondents’ knowledgeof current environmental issues. Items were authored to National EnvironmentalEducation and Training Foundation/Roper (Coyle 2005). These 12 items havebeen utilized in several studies over a ten-year period. Coyle (2005) reported thatthese items provide reliable environmental knowledge measures (Figure 1). In aneffort to limit guessing, each knowledge question included an ‘I don’t know’selection. The environmental attitude scale used in this study, included ten, five-step rating scale items (‘1’= strongly disagree, ‘2’= disagree, ‘3’= undecided,‘4’= agree, ‘5’= strongly agree), concerning feelings and values related to environ-ment (Figure 2). The study’s 19 five-step rating scale items (Figure 3) of attitudestowards environmental responsibility dimension assessed individuals’ responsibility(item 8), as well as governmental responsibility (items 2, 9, 13), landowners'responsibility (item 5) and the responsibility of people in general (items 1, 4, 6,10–12, 14, 17–19). The concern scale items specifically emphasized participants’sensitivity towards environmental problems and issues, included eight five-steprating scale items (Figure 4).

In total, the EL scale used for this study consists of 55 (4 items for student char-acteristics, 6 for environmental background, 11 for knowledge, 7 for attitudes, 19for uses and 8 for concern) items which provide 51 measures of respondents

Item #

Measures (Togits)

Error (Togits)

Selected Items

2 +891.40 29.10 What is the major source of carbon monoxide production? _*

_* 9 385.93 2.99 Which of the following household wastes is considered a hazardous waste?7 381.54 3.06 Where does most of the garbage in Turkey end up?

11 365.38 3.69 Scientists have not determined the best solution for disposing of nuclear waste. In Turkey what do we do with it now?

5 311.11 3.19 Which of the following is a renewable resource? 10 304.89 3.03 What is the most common reason that animal species become extinct?

3 272.72 3,28 How is most electricity in Turkey generated? 6 261.33 3.33 Ozone forms a protective layer in the earth’s upper atmosphere. What does ozone

protect us from?8 247.01 3.51 What is the name of the primary governmental agency that works to protect the

environment? 4 218.74 3.91 What is the most common cause of pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans?

1 117.67 6.72 There are many different kinds of animals and plants, and they live in many different environments. What is the word used to describe this idea?

*Indicates that there is a gap in the scaling of the item measures

Easiest Items

Hardest Items

Figure 1. Environmental knowledge items displayed on the linear TOGIT scale.

Environmental Education Research 209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Item Number

Measures (Togits)

Error (Togits)

Selected Items

11 641.60 4.03 All plants and animals play an important role in the environment 6 634.81 3.92 It is important that everyone be aware of environmental problems

13 590.38 3.52 Government should pass laws to make recycling mandatory2 588.36 3.45 Laws regarding water quality should be stricter 1 571.17 3.25 Special areas should be set aside for endangered species 8 568.79 3.25 I feel personally responsible for helping to solve environmental problems10 554.34 3.08 People should be held responsible for any damages they cause to the environment 12 548.48 3.03 Technological changes often do as much harm to the environment as they do good

for the environment 4 543.53 3.00 Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be killed 9 534.78 2.95 Government should regulate the use of private land to protect wildlife habitat 7 528.18 2.83 Individual should be allowed to use private land as they see fit 19 522.39 2.78 Lifestyle changes (i.e. consumption) will help solve environmental problems 18 507.42 2.60 Collective action (i.e. movements) is central to solving environmental problems14 501.87 2.79 Air pollution laws are strict enough17 501.84 2.60 Changes in people’s values will help solve environmental problems 15 498.74 2.60 Science and technology will be very important in solving environmental problems

16 439.09 2.15 Cultural changes will be very important in solving environmental problems

5 374.93 1.94 Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands for agricultural and industrial uses 3 374.27 1.91 Protect wild animals that provide meat

Easy to Agree with

Difficult to Agree with

Figure 3. Attitude towards environmental responsibility items displayed on the linearTOGIT scale.

Item Number

Measures (Togits)

Error (Togits)

Selected Items

4 667.45 4.51 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist

10 548.95 2.95 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecolgical catastrophe

3 534.55 2.72 The earth has not plenty of natural resources if we just do not learn how to develop them

7 511.66 2.54 The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has not been greatlyexaggerated

1 496.64 2.36 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 2 494.26 2.34 When human interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences

6 465.51 2.27 Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature5 443.57 2.15 The balance of nature is not strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern

industrial nations 9 438.84 2.20 Humans will not learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it

8 380.47 2.22 Humans were not meant to rule over the rest of nature

Difficult to Agree with

Easy to Agree with

Figure 2. Environmental attitude items displayed on the linear TOGIT scale.

210 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

(a knowledge measure, attitude, attitude towards environmental responsibility andconcern).

Data analysis

Similar to other educational areas in environmental research studies, rating or rank-ing scales are used for the collection of data. Furthermore, these data are commonlycoded, entered into spread sheets and then those data are used for immediatedescriptive statistical computations as well as parametric tests such as ANOVAs andt-tests. The data obtained through these rating or ranking scales give researchersnonlinear data. There is now an acknowledgement that an error in such immediateanalysis of rating/ranking scale data (environmental and otherwise) is that nonlineardata must not be treated as if it is linear and that researchers must convert the non-linear data obtained through rating scale to linear data through application of Raschmeasurement theory (Rasch 1960) and researchers should use Rasch theory forinstrument development. Boone and Scantlebury (2006) and Boone, Townsend andStaver (2011) have discussed these and other issues as the topic relates to the fieldof science education research.

In this study, data were analywed by using the stochastic Rasch model (Rasch1960). A Rasch analysis of the data was conducted through computer programmesWinsteps (Linacre 2009). A Rasch analysis technique was used, in part, because theEL Questionnaire included rating scales. Conversion of the nonlinear data obtainedfrom rating scales into interval data can only be accomplished using Rasch analysistechniques (Wright and Masters 1982). In addition to being able to converting non-linear raw data to an interval data for use with parametric tests, Rasch analysisenables researchers to evaluate responses even if a data set has missing data. As inalmost any data set, there are items that are skipped (or not reached) by respon-dents. Use of Rasch analysis techniques under the right circumstances results in the

Item Number

Measures (Togits)

Error (Togits)

Selected Items

6 597.55 3.71 Poor drinking water quality

9 562.81 4.13 Global warming7 554.31 3.42 Indoor air pollution

3 535.76 3.31 Auto emission

1 502.49 3.16 Smoke pollution 8 500.45 3.17 Ozone depletion

5 484.87 3.11 Hazardous waste 2 470.40 3.05 Noise pollution

4 431.32 2.98 Industrial pollution

Less Concerned

More Concerned

Figure 4. Environmental concern items displayed on the linear TOGIT scale.

Environmental Education Research 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

decreased loss of respondent data (Wright and Douglas 1977). In other words, theitem independent and sample independent nature of Rasch analysis decreases thenumber of missing data points. In that

Winsteps does not require complete data in order to make estimation. Winsteps is veryflexible as regards estimable data structures. For each parameter (person, item or Ras-ch Andrich threshold) there are sufficient statistics: the marginal raw scores and countsof the non-observations. During Winsteps estimation, the observed marginal countsand the observed and expected marginal scores are computed from the same set ofnon-missing observation. Missing data are skipped over in these additions. Whenrequired, Winsteps can compute an expected value for every observation (present ormissing) for which the item and person estimates are known (Linacre 2011, 606).

Finally, Rasch analysis was also utilized for the analysis of knowledge items.Although these items do not result in rating scale data, such nonlinear data must beconverted from raw data to linear data (as is the case for rating scale data). That iswhy entities such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)utilized Rasch analysis for the evaluation of test data similar in form to that whichis collected with the EL questionnaire knowledge question items.

Rasch analysis was conducted for each scale of the EL Questionnaire. Throughthese analyses, calibrations of each scale’s items (and the calibrations of eachrespondent) were plotted in so-called Wright maps (Wilson 1989). Differential itemfunctioning (DIF) was used to evaluate whether specific survey items (for each ofthe 4 scales) might define the trait in a different manner as a function of gender.This evaluation of DIF is similar to the common steps taken to evaluate gender testbias. Additional analysis steps included the assessment of item reliability, personreliability, item mean square residual (MNSQ) outfit and person MNSQ outfit.Construct validity was assessed through the plotting of item calibrations along eachmeasures logit scale. The locations of items along each of the instrument traits werecompared to that which was predicted prior to data analysis technique by whichconstruct validity could be evaluated.

TOGIT units

The person measures and item measures (evaluated on a single unidimensionalscale) were computed for each scale of the EL instrument’s four scales. The analy-sis presented in this paper is expressed in TOGITS. These are the Rasch logits thathave been converted to a user-friendly 1–1000 scale through use of a simple lineartransformation. Readers can think of this conversion as a one similar to that inwhich degrees Fahrenheit is converted to degrees Celsius. International assessmentssuch as PISA and TIMSS use such conversions to present non-negative personmeasures and to also present a scale in which those evaluating data will not confusemeasure data (persons, items) with percentiles and/or Raw scores that are oftenexpressed from 1 to 100.

Results

Environmental knowledge

The 11 environmental knowledge items have been displayed on a linear logarithmicscale – Wright Map – (Figure 1). Items at the top of the scale were the hardest

212 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

items to correctly answer. Those items at the base of the scale were easiest for thepreservice teachers to correctly answer.

The ordering of environmental knowledge revealed that participants of this studyhad by far the most difficulty in correctly identifying major sources of carbon mon-oxide emissions (Figure 1, item 2). In the case of this item, this meant that a groupof students thought that factories and businesses were the main source of carbonmonoxide emissions. However, another large group of students indicated a percep-tion that motor vehicles were a major source of carbon monoxide.

An analysis of response patterns of students to the set of knowledge items sug-gested that Item 9 and Item 7 were unpredictably answered by respondents. Item 9concerned the identification of hazardous household waste sources. For this item, apercentage of respondents identified plastic packaging as hazardous waste. Butanother significant group of respondents identified batteries as a source of hazardouswaste. Item 7 asked students to indicate where does most the garbage in Turkeyend up? For this item, one of two response options was commonly selected byrespondents: in the sea or landfills.

Contrary to these difficult-to-answer items, item 1, 4 and 8 were generally easyfor respondents to answer. Of these items, item 1 was the easiest item to correctlyanswer. Most of the students in the sample selected the correct answer ‘biodiversity’when they were asked to describe their idea about the definition ‘there are differentkinds of animals and plants, and they live in many different types of environment’.In general, they were able to correctly identify that different kinds of animals andplants living in different environments are considered to be emblematic of biodiver-sity. For item 4, the students were asked to determine the most common cause ofpollution of streams, rivers and oceans. Most of the students answered this questioncorrectly as untreated wastewater discharges (from a set of response options).

Environmental attitude

The responses for 10 environmental attitude items are displayed through use of aWright Map, using a linear logarithmic scale, (Figure 2). As Figure 2 displays, themajority of the participants easily agreed that plants and animals have as much rightas humans to exist (item 4). In comparison with the other items of this subscale,this is as by far the easiest items for respondents to agree with. There was less of atendency for participants to agree with items 10 and 3 than with item 4, but stillcompared to other survey items; these two items elicited strong positive attitudes(agreement). As can be seen in Figure 2, these two items concerned humans contin-ued use of environmental resources without considering problems associated withexcess usage and that by not considering such problems, humans may experiencean ecological catastrophe. This issue can be seen to be manifested in item number1, ‘we are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support’,which falls in the approximate middle of the 10 environmental attitudes defined bythis subscale items.

A review of the remaining survey items of this scale suggests a group of itemsthat were more difficult to agree with relative to the aforementioned items. Theseitems are those related to whose is responsible for potential ecological catastrophes.Item 2 is related to the topic of human interference. Items 8 and 9 address this issue(one of human interference and responses of preservice teachers seem to suggest a

Environmental Education Research 213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

view that some participants view humans as master’s of the world, while others donot have this perspective.

The overall ‘relative agreement’ for that item related to the participants’ opin-ions on humans’ ability to learn about to control how nature works was not asstrong as with the other items. Similarly, for item 5, the participants had difficultyin agreeing (as readily as was observed in items 8, 9, 5) whether nature can com-pensate with the pollution and other hazardous impacts of industrialization.

Attitudes towards environmental responsibility

The responses to items presented in the attitude towards environmental responsibil-ity subscale are summarized in the Wright map (Figure 3). Review of these datasuggests that compared to other items of the subscale, respondents found it rela-tively easier to agree that all animals and plants are important for environment (item11) and that people should be aware of the environmental problems (item 6). Thenext two items that were relatively easier to agree with (compared to the remainingitems) were items 13 and item 2. Item 13 concerned the issue of recycling and item2 is related to stricter laws for water quality. There is, however, large differencebetween the measures for items 11 and 6 (the two items of this subscale most easilyanswered in the affirmative through agreement) and items 13 and 2. Thus, items 13and 2 are easier to agree with in some manner than the remaining subscale items(such as item 1), but items 11 and 6 are significantly easier to agree with than items13 and 2. Survey items 5 and 3 were the items hardest for respondents to agreewith in comparison with other items of this subscale. Generally, the overall patternof responses to the environmental responsibility items is similar to the overall pat-tern observed in the previously discussed portions of the ELQ. Namely as can beseen in the responses of the ‘knowledge items’, preservice teachers do not seethemselves as contributing to environmental problems.

Environmental concern

The responses for the environmental concern subscale items are summarized inFigure 3. The results suggest that the preservice teachers in Turkey are more con-cerned with poor drinking-water quality, global warming, and indoor air pollution(with decreasing concern). They were less concerned with industrial pollution. Theseresults may be interpreted as reflecting how immediate problems of everyday lifeshape concern for the environment. An example of immediate (personal) problemsmight be personally experiencing water scarcity, and this issue might in turn exacer-bate preservice teachers’ relative concerns regarding water quality. We furtherhypothesize water shortages also might perceived as one of result of global warming,and this in turn may increase participants’ concerns regarding global warming. Therelatively low relative concern expressed for industrial pollution by these studentsmay also be a reflection of being a member of a developing country. Participantsmay view industrial pollution as an expectable/tolerable result of industrial develop-ment, and they are not in a position to prefer environment over industrialization.

In this study, for knowledge test and three scales item separation reliabilitieswere computed as 1.0, which were high. These high item reliability separation val-ues indicated that when we consider the item separation on item map for each scale,we are very certain where the items (location on the map) are on the map. Also due

214 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

to large sample size, we had very low error for each scale. Rasch analysis use itemseparation statistics for item reliability. These reliabilities ‘tell how well this sampleof examinees have spread out the items along the measure of the test, and sodefined a meaningful variable’ (Fisher 1992, 238). Same item measures were usedfor below DIF for gender comparisons.

DIF as a function of gender

DIF analysis (e.g. Yilmaz, Boone, and Andersen 2004) was used to explore whetheritems defined each of the subscale traits in a similar manner as a function of gender.Readers unfamiliar with DIF can view DIF as one technique by which one cancompare whether the construct validity of instrument is the same as a function ofsubgroups. DIF is a common technique that is used by testing companies toinvestigate differences as a function of gender. A number of techniques are avail-able to present an analysis of DIF. As a discussion of the intricacies of DIF isbeyond the scope of this paper, we will simply present the results of the DIF analy-sis in light of the author’s interest in better understanding EL. Once again throughDIF analysis, we are statistically comparing the ordering and spacing of the items,

Table 2. EL items exhibiting DIF.

Girls Boys

t-test pDIF

measuresDIF Standard

ErrorDIF

measuresDIF Standard

Error

KnowledgeItem 3 380.07 6.64 420.51 9.57 �3.47 0.0005Item 4 301.23 7.90 332.82 11.55 �2.26 0.0000Item 6 386.66 6.46 342.46 11.00 3.46 0.0005Item 8 342.38 7.07 375.14 10.51 0.0098 0.0000AttitudeItem 1 508.22 3.05 474.61 3.88 6.81 0.0000Item 3 534.55 3.31 534.55 4.85 0.00 0.0002Item 4 691.48 5.92 630.17 7.16 6.60 0.0000Item 5 436.34 2.60 458.51 3.91 �4.72 0.0000Item 6 461.15 2.74 474.62 4.13 �2.72 0.0000Item 8 374.54 2.70 393.64 4.02 �3.94 0.0001ResponsibilityItem 3 368.00 2.31 388.88 3.41 �5.06 0.0000Item 5 362.29 2.38 401.03 3.42 �9.30 0.0000Item 6 654.49 5.08 598.76 6.18 6.97 0.0000Item 8 585.41 4.17 538.42 5.02 7.20 0.0000Item 10 558.68 3.82 544.75 5.20 2.16 0.0000Item 11 650.46 5.04 622.02 6.76 3.37 0.0000Item 13 599.57 4.42 572.32 5.85 3.72 0.0002Item 19 528.76 3.49 508.80 4.61 3045 0.0006ConcernItem 4 419.16 3.58 458.90 5.50 �6.06 0.0000Item 6 612.42 4.67 571.80 6.26 7.81 0.0000Item 7 568.72 4.27 526.59 5.88 7.26 0.0000

Environmental Education Research 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

in essence the Wright map for one scale using just the females to another Wrightmap for the same scale with just the males.

Table 2 presents the results of the DIF analysis. Items plotted within 95% confi-dence intervals (p-value higher than alpha) were viewed as non-DIF items. Itemsoutside the 95% confidence interval were viewed as items possibly exhibiting DIF(p-value lower than or equal to alpha). It is important to note that DIF does notdetect the items for which females exhibit more agreement than males (and viceversa). On the contrary, DIF identifies whether the measurement scale functions in adifferent manner for different comparison groups. In other words, if one were toconduct a separate analysis of any of the subscale data for males and females, doesthe pattern of items on the Wright map look similar? Not whether or not there is

Table 3. EL items showing DIF by gender.

Scales Gender Position items

Knowledge Relatively difficult to answerFemale Item 6 Ozone forms a protective layer in the earth’s upper

atmosphere. What does ozone protect us from?Male Item 3 How is most electricity in Turkey generated?

Item 4 What is the most common cause of pollution ofstreams, rivers, and oceans?Item 8 What is the name of the primary governmental agencythat works to protect the environment?

Attitude More relative agreementFemale Item 1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people

the earth can supportItem 4 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to existItem 8 Humans were not meant to rule over the rest of nature

Male Item 2 When human interfere with nature it often producesdisastrous consequencesItem 5 The balance of nature is not strong enough to copewith the impacts of modern industrial nationsItem 6 Despite our special abilities humans are still subject tothe laws of nature

Attitude towardsResponsibility

More relative agreement

Female Item 6 It is important that everyone be aware ofenvironmental problemsItem 8 I feel personally responsible for helping to solveenvironmental problemsItem 10 People should be held responsible for any damagesthey cause to the environmentItem 11 All plants and animals play an important role in theenvironmentItem 13 Government should pass laws to make recyclingmandatoryItem 19 Lifestyle changes (i.e. consumption) will help solveenvironmental problems

Male Item 3 Not protect wild animals that provide meatItem 5 Landowners should not be allowed to drain wetlandsfor agricultural and industrial uses

Concern More relative concernFemale Item 6 Poor drinking water quality

Item 7 Indoor air pollutionMale Item 4 Industrial pollution

216 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

agreement in the intensity of ‘agreement’ among two comparison groups such asmales and females, but is there a different way in which items are defined along thetrait as measured by the subscale.

Table 2 also presents the statistical/psychometric data which was used to evalu-ate DIF. Items of the EL scale in Table 2 exhibit potential DIF, the far right columnpresents the statistical level of confidence in the detection of DIF as a function ofgender. The DIF analyses were run separately for each scale and Bonferroni alphalevel adjustments used were found as 0.004, 0.007, 0.0026, and 0.0062 for knowl-edge, attitude, sensitivity and concern scales, respectively. Table 3 summarizes theDIF results. Generally, the results suggest that for many of the survey items, thereappears to be a difference as a function of gender. For the environmental knowledgescale, items 3, 4, 6 and 8 were observed as possibly exhibiting DIF. While for item6, females exhibited more difficulty in answering them correctly, and for items 3, 4and 8, males exhibited more difficulty. With respect to the issue of environmentalattitudes, items 1, 3–6 and 8 were found as exhibiting possible DIF items. Forfemales more relative agreement for items 1, 4 and 8 was exhibited compared tomales, but males exhibited more relative agreement for items 3, 5 and 6.

A total of 8 items from the ‘responsibility’ dimension exhibited possible DIF.Females showed more relative agreements for items 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 19. Malesexhibited more relative agreements for items 3 and 5. The DIF responsibility itemsfor females suggest that these female preservice teachers may exhibit more relativeagreement for the items which highlight the human awareness and responsibilitiesfor environmental problems. One of the items (item 19), for which females exhib-ited more relative agreement, concerns lifestyle changes as a solution for environ-mental problems. Recycling and the importance of plant and animal species alsowere two distinct issues which seem to distinguish males and females.

On the contrary to females, who seemed to be concentrated on the humanresponsibility for finding solutions to environmental problems, as for the case ofitem 19, males were in more agreement to solve the wetland use problems by gov-ernmental precautions (item number 5).

The final subscale of the survey involved the issue of ‘Environmental concern’.DIF analysis suggested that while poor drinking water and indoor air pollution weretypical concerns for female participants, industrial pollution became an issue formale participants.

Discussion

EL in general

Rasch and Wright maps

There is a great advantage in the use of Wright maps for the analysis of EL data –items can be presented along a single scale that has been corrected for the nonlinear-ity of rating scales. Furthermore, Wright maps are a useful analysis tool whenresearchers evaluate data such as the knowledge items of the study measurement tool.Use of the Wright map presents the possibility of comparing the relative item ease ordifficulty for respondents. Overall, we suggest that researchers in EL, who choose touse tests and/or rating scales, which present a group of items to define a single trait,should use Rasch measurement techniques not only to correct for the nonlinearity ofraw data, but also should utilize Wright maps to communicate research findings.

Environmental Education Research 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Knowledge items

It was observed that all the questions in the knowledge test were not at the samelevel of difficulty. In general, items involving basic content knowledge (like defini-tion of biodiversity) were easy to answer by participants. In addition, it appears thatitems involving issues covered by both books and media (e.g. factories as a sourceof water pollution) also were easy to answer. We hypothesize that among many fac-tors, this might be due to participants having well-established understanding ofthese issues from courses they have completed and their own informal experiences.Items involving topics such as sources of carbon monoxide pollution, hazardouswastes and process of handling garbage were harder for respondents to correctlyanswer (Figure 1). We hypothesize that this is related to interrelated knowledgebeing difficult for participants to master.

The influence of environmental programmes

An additional explanation of item difficulty may be related to what participants havelearned about these topics and how they have learned about these topics. For exam-ple, preservice teachers of this study appear to have difficulty constructing relation-ship between environmental issues and environmental problems. Although theyfound easiest to define ‘biodiversity’, it was not that easy to answer the most com-mon reasons for species extinction. Another example of this weakness on the part ofthe sampled preservice teachers is that it was easy to identify the major feature ofthe ozone layer, whereas it was very hard to identify the major source of carbonmonoxide when presented with the options of factories, motor vehicles, peoplebreathing and trees. What is more, as the types of answers given for the items relatedto sources of pollution (item numbers 2, 7, 10 and 4) indicate, preservice teachersseem as if they only consider factories to be agents of pollution; yet the preserviceteachers do not consider themselves to be one of the agents which contribute to car-bon monoxide emissions, garbage production, depleting the living areas of other spe-cies or fresh water pollution. Preservice teachers, therefore, appear to have difficultyin noting the relationship between consumption, production and environmental pollu-tion. Thus, considering the state of the environmental education programmes in Tur-key, this inconvenience may be best explained through what Orr (2004) wrote in hisbook titled ‘Earth in Mind’. The things on which our future health and prosperitydepend are in dire danger, and according to him (1994), this is not the work of igno-rant people, rather it is largely the results of work by people with degrees.

Because what was wrong in their education is, it emphasized theories instead of val-ues, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answersinstead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience. It is not educationbut education of a certain kind that will save us.

… what was wrong in their education is, it emphasized theories instead of values,concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answersinstead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience (8). Moreover,one of the reasons for the inconvenience stated above may be explained by discuss-ing ‘What do we mean by ‘the problem?” as Arbuthnot did in 1977. The problemmay result from the use of everyday explanations to understand the environmentalproblems. Cognitive domain has been given more places, in environmental educa-

218 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

tion practice, compared to affective domain and basic knowledge about ecologicalconcepts has been the focus of many educational programmes (Gurevitz 2000).However, as Orams (1997) stated, emphasizing affective domain and involve emo-tions is one of the most powerful tools in prompting pro-environmental behavioursby means of environmental education programmes because it helps learners inter-nalize the messages. Moreover, as also agreed by Tilbury (1995) and Yeung (2002),decisions of people to participate in the solutions of environmental problems arenot simulated just by the cognitive realm but affective forms such as developmentof a personal environmental ethic and giving more attention to the elements of con-cern and empathy in the classrooms are required and should be integrated into envi-ronmental education programmes. Or, we can further investigate our results throughthe evaluation made by Jensen (2002) that environmental education taught inschools is the main reason why knowledge does not per se lead to action or thedevelopment of pro-environmental behaviour. Because environmental educationtaught in schools is far from being action-oriented, yet traditional in nature, empha-sizing transmission of knowledge from teacher to students, who are the passive par-ticipants. In a different angle of looking at the situation, however, it may bepossible to argue the above result, as Yavetz, Goldman and Pe’er (2009) did,through the influential role of academic studies on preservice teachers’ EL level andthe relevance of personal qualifications and different background variables as deter-mining factors.

As far as attitude scale is considered, Rasch analysis enabled us to distinguishparticipants’ sensitivity, attitudes and values on a Wright Map which functions as ameter stick – this means that there is no warping of the scale due to the nonlinearityof raw scores. Analyses of this unique data set revealed that preservice teachersbelieved that plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. Otherimportant patterns in the data were a pattern of preservice teachers' responses whichsuggested the strongly held view that excess usage of world resources will be resultin ecological problems. These preservice teachers found it very difficult to viewhumans as the master of the nature, and they found it very difficult to agree thatnature by itself can compensate for the pollution created by industrial activities. Wesuggest that the manner in which the final 5 items of the attitude subscale reflectsparticipants may choose either a human (anthropocentric) perspective or an environ-ment (ecocentric) perspective. We hypothesize that this might be what the preser-vice teachers had difficulty with.

The authors of this paper feel that a case can be made that preservice teachers’responses related to environmental responsibility may provide a general picture ofeach participant’s EL profile. Although the preservice teachers appreciate the role ofhuman in solving environmental problems (items 11 and 6), they seem to supportgovernmental initiatives (items 13, 2, 1) at the first site avenue for addressing envi-ronmental problems. Items regarding ‘individual responsibility’ (items 8 and 10)are viewed as a less popular option than governmental precautions. Interestingly,science and technology (items 12 and 15) are viewed as the least popular selectionamong respondents.

Results of responses to the environmental concern scale findings suggested thatthe surveyed preservice teachers were more concerned with the poor drinking-waterquality, global warming and indoor air pollution and least concerned with industrialpollution. Similar concerns also were observed by Tuncer et al. (2009) in Turkey,but among a sample of 684 preservice teachers. The authors found that preservice

Environmental Education Research 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

teachers generally were concerned with regard to poor drinking-water quality,indoor air pollution, ozone depletion/global warming and hazardous wastes. Wehave hypothesized that some reasons for a relative high level of concern with regardto water and global warming could be explained by the impact of recent watershortages in Turkey. Other researchers in a variety of cultures (e.g. Huang and Yore2003; Sarigollu 2009; Vlaardingerbroek and Taylor 2007) have observed evidenceof the impact of ‘in the news’ environmental issues upon environmental attitudes.For example, Vlaardingerbroek and Taylor (2007) found that while Lebanon studentteachers were generally concerned about air pollution, water pollution and defores-tation, Australian student teachers were found to be significantly more concernedabout soil degradation and loss of biodiversity. Authors claimed that environmentalproblems such as soil degradation and loss of biodiversity are ‘pressing and well-publicized’ issues in Australia, whereas air and water quality are visible Beirutproblems. The cause of the lower level of concern indicated by the Lebanese stu-dent teachers regarding deforestation, on the other hand, was attributed to theawareness of Lebanese student teachers with regard to this issue. Some of the Leba-nese student teachers also indicated a concern with respect to the disposal of gar-bage, a lack of recycling in Lebanon, local noise pollution, as well as coastal waterpollution. Australian student teachers, when asked about environmental problemsmentioned climate change, soil salinity, water supplies, river degradation, waste dis-posal, recycling, energy generation, mining, dune preservation, reef degradation,erosion, nuclear waste disposal and species introduction, It has been also reportedthat Australian student teachers tended to recognize the need for people to changetheir lifestyles for the sake of the environment.

EL from gender perspective

The Rasch DIF analyses conducted with this data set indicated that many of theitems functioned differently (from a measurement perspective) for males andfemales. With regard to ‘environmental concerns’ it was found that female partici-pants exhibited more relative agreement with regard to topics such as quality ofdrinking water and indoor air pollution than males. On the contrary, male partici-pants exhibited more relative agreement with regard to the topic of industrial pollu-tion than females. We suggest that those DIF differences, in part, may be reflectiveof gender roles in societies (in this case Turkish society). In Turkey, it is still thecase that females are generally responsible for issues of the home and thus theymay have more concern regarding the quality of drinking water and pollution thatthey may create during housework. They may also be more cognizant of the role ofwater in the preparation of foods. For the males of the sample, although they willbe professionals (teachers), in Turkey, it still may be the case, to some degree, thatmales may more often work (and relax outside), and as a result, they may havemore frequent encounters with all manner of pollution caused by industrial work.This might explain males’ differing level of concern regarding industrial pollutionin comparison with that of females. Results of DIF analysis suggested that maleshave a tendency to think about the relationship between humans and the environ-ment. More specifically, male responses suggest that they may pay more attention(relative to the other instrument items) to the issue of how humans impact the envi-ronment. Very interestingly, analysis of female responses suggested that femalesmay reflect upon the structure of world and its changing nature, at a more intense

220 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

level than males. Females in this sample appeared more concerned about what isgoing to happen to the environment and all living species.

As has been explored by a number of Turkish researchers (e.g. Cavas et al.2009; Tuncer et al. 2009), differences found between males and females might bebest explained in terms of both socialization-based theory and structural theory (Zel-ezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). Utilizing socialization-based theory, one way inwhich the differences in priorities (and/or attitudes) of males and females can beinterpreted is as the result for the gender difference in environmental concern. Yet,caregiver roles directed females to become more nurturing, protective and coopera-tive (e.g. Blocker and Eckberg 1997) which could provide one explanation as towhy females in this study exhibited more concern regarding issues related to the‘environment’ of the home, than did males. Females may have this tendency due totheir nurturing and protective roles, especially with respect to children and withregard to housework they take on. Blocker and Eckberg (1997) explained men’s sit-uation for different priorities (and/or attitudes) compared to females so-called ‘mar-ketplace mentality’. According to the authors, males’ direction towards economicprovider role makes them more realistic, masterful and competitive compared tofemales. Thus, increasing their concern about economic growth, technical masteryof the earth and resources utilization leads to the development of unfavourable envi-ronmental attitudes. This line of argument by Blocker and Eckberg (1997) is sup-ported by the findings of this paper’s study of preservice Turkish teachers. To thisday in Turkish society, males are seen as the dominant figure in supporting familyexpenses. Thus, since they need to work outside the home, they may have moreopportunity confront economic issues in their work places more so than females.Because of this characteristic, it can be postulated that males’ favourable orientationtowards economic may provide them with more opportunities to observe (or at leastbe aware) the impact of economic growth upon the environment. And thus may feelthat this issue, as opposed to the many of the other issues mentioned in the survey,is of great importance. The findings of this study with regard to general differencesin responses as a function of gender are supported in data patterns which have beenobserved in the earlier study conducted in Turkish context by Tosunoglu (1993).

The attitude towards environmental responsibility scale items revealed thatfemale participants had relatively more agreement on the items which highlight theecocentric orientations. Again utilizing structural theory as a lens by which thesedata, in part, can be evaluated, the pro-environmental behaviours of the female pre-service teachers may be viewed as having been influenced from the beliefs about thedetrimental effects of environmental problems for self, others and biosphere (Stern,Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Tikka, Kuitunen, and Tynys 2000). The nurturing role offemales considered earlier in interpretation of DIF trends also may be one explana-tion of the environmental responsibility data patterns in comparison of males andfemales. A natural nurturing role may make females more alert to health and safetyissues and generally increase their environmental concerns (Blocker and Eckberg1997; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). Besides exhibiting a general sensitivitytowards environmental protection, female participants also showed relatively moreagreement than males on some issues. These issues were related to recycling andprotection of plant and animal species. Bord and O’Connor (1997) noted thatfemales were more environmentally concerned than males when there was a risk tohealth and personal related to environmental issues such as, nuclear power, irradiatedfood, chemical and radioactive wastes, and food preservatives. In a similar vein,

Environmental Education Research 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Riechard and Peterson (1998) found that female precollege students perceivedgreater risk than male students with regard to several environmental hazards, such asfood additives and preservatives, tornadoes, radon gas, earthquakes, pesticide, soilspills, decrease in topsoil and decrease in wetlands. Our study, as well as these paststudies (Blocker and Eckberg 1997; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000) suggests thatfemales may have a tendency to have stronger views as to particular environmentalissues. In our study, we also found that male participants possessed more relativeresponsibility towards specific environmental problems which is wetland uses.

Solutions to environmental problems are rarely agreed by male participants.Worsley and Skrzypiec’s (1998) reported that male students were more optimisticand more supportive of science solutions to environmental problems in comparisonwith female students. In our study, we found that males seemed more interested inpreserving wetlands by giving emphasis to governmental laws. This tendency ofmales towards wetland might be interpreted as they having a non-environmental ori-entation (governmental solutions), whereas tendency of males towards hunting ani-mals for human might be interpreted as anthropocentric orientation (Kortenkampand Moore 2001). In summary, our analysis suggests that while females had morerelative agreement on ecocentric items males had more relative agreement on non-environmental and anthropocentric items

Conclusions

With this research, we used Rasch analysis to help in the evaluation of EL, animportant consideration for environmental education. Our discussion has centredupon an evaluation of EL, in terms of knowledge, attitudes, responsibility and con-cern. Evaluating these components of EL with a Rasch analysis enabled us to eval-uate data on a linear scale and allowed us to construct Wright Maps. Overall,participants’ ideas towards concepts such as ‘plants’ and animals’ equal rights ashumans, to exist’, was by far the easiest for respondents to agree with in compari-son with pessimistic scenarios about the planet’s future. One important trend in thisvery large sample of Turkish preservice teachers is that these future teachers are farfrom internalizing ‘human–environment relationships’. Therefore, we conclude as aresult that Turkish preservice teachers, as far as the sample of this study is con-cerned, do not possess an acceptable degree of knowledge. That is to say, they donot have ability to identify, analyse, investigate and evaluate environmental prob-lems and issues, the interrelationships between natural and social systems.

As far as the attitudes are concerned, although participants seem as if they verywell recognized the importance of environmental quality, environmental problems,they have difficulty choosing between human or environment perspective. Thisresult may be related with their unacceptable degree of environmental knowledge toidentify the interrelationships between human and nature. But this does not preventus concluding that, although preservice teachers of the Turkish sample have accept-able/positive attitudes, they fail to transfer such attitudes further to be determinedfor choosing between development and environment.

Depending on our definition of attitudes towards environmental responsibility, itis hard to define our participants as having ‘positive attitudes towards environmentalresponsibility’. We defined attitude towards environmental responsibility, as adimension of EL, as feeling responsible for individual and collective actions toinfluence outcomes of environmental problems. But the preservice teachers of this

222 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 23: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

study support the ability of governmental actions rather than individual responsibil-ity in addressing environmental problem solving. Moreover, preservice teachers ofthis study are expected to take precautions (concerned) mostly about poor drinking-water quality, global warming and indoor air pollution.

As a conclusion of all, we can describe EL profile of our sample as, people con-cerned about the issues that they experienced impacts on their lives in the shortterm only (poor drinking-water quality, global warming and indoor pollution), sup-port governmental actions for the solution of these problems and fail to make corre-lations between the problems and their consumption and/or living habits, because oftheir inadequate environmental knowledge. The sample, therefore, can be describedas environmentally illiterate.

The competed data collection, development of Wright maps and the completionof a DIF analysis as a function of gender suggest a number of important trends forthose investigating the issue of EL. The data reported in this paper are important inthat an additional snapshot of an important sample is provided (preservice teachersin a rapidly developing country). First of all, there is evidence in the data set thatgenerally the respondents have a low level of EL. This can be seen in the great dif-ference in the Wright map locations of items requiring well-known definitions ofecology and items requiring an ability to make connections among ecological issue:Figure 1, items 1 and 9). Besides, it was by far easiest for the respondents to makea connection between being aware of environmental problems and changing life-styles to help solve environmental problems (Figure 3, items 6 and 19). What'smore, we observed in the concern Wright map a large difference in the level ofagreement with regard to concerns about immediate environmental problems (e.g.poor drinking-water quality) and gradual ones (e.g. industrial pollution), revealingparticipants’ failure to making a relationship between industrial discharges and pol-lution of the water sources.

We suggest that the overall pattern that one sees in this data is that the partici-pants of this study are at the first stage of being environmentally literate; their eco-centric point of view promises to foster the further development of EL. We suggestthat environmental education programmes shall contain values more than theories,human beings more than concepts, consciousness more than abstraction, questionsmore than answers, conscience more than ideology and efficiency for perceiving therelationship between human and environment.

Notes on contributorsG. Tuncer Teksoz is an associate professor in elementary science education at the MiddleEast Technical University, Ankara Turkey. She received her PhD, MS and BS degrees inenvironmental engineering and she received associated professorship in elementary scienceeducation. Her areas of interests are environmental education, education for sustainabilityand climate change education for sustainability.

J.W. Boone is a full professor of educational psychology specializing in the application ofRasch measurement. In 2012, he was named a Fulbright Scholar. He is currently completinga book (Publisher: Springer) Concerning the why’s and how’s of Utilizing RaschMeasurement.

O. Yilmaz-Tuzun is an associate professor in the Elementary Education Department ofMiddle East Technical University. Her research interests are environmental education,environmental epistemological beliefs, environmental moral reasoning and values andscience teacher education.

Environmental Education Research 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 24: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

C. Oztekin is a professor in elementary science education at the Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Turkey. She received her PhD (1996), MS (1991) in science education and BS(1988) in biological sciences from the Middle East Technical University. Her main researchinterests are conceptual understanding, epistemological beliefs and environmental education.

ReferencesAlp, E., H. Ertepınar, C. Tekkaya, and A. Yılmaz. 2008. “A Study on Elementary School

Students’ Environmentally Friendly Behaviours and Associated Variables.” Environmen-tal Education Research 14 (2): 129–143.

Arbuthnot, J. 1977. “The Roles of Attitudinal and Personality Variables in the Prediction ofEnvironmental Behaviour and Knowledge.” Environment and Behaviour 9: 217–232.

Ballantyne, R. R., and J. M. Packer. 1996. “Teaching and Learning in Environmental Educa-tion: Developing Environmental Conceptions.” Journal of Environmental Education 27:25–32.

Blocker, T. J., and D. L. Eckberg. 1997. “Gender and Environmentalism: Results from the1993 General Social Survey.” Social Science Quarterly 78: 841–858.

Boone, W. J., J. S. Townsend, and J. Staver. 2011. “Using Rasch Theory to Guide the Prac-tice of Survey Development and Survey Data Analysis in Science Education and toInform Science Reform Efforts: An Exemplar Utilizing STEBI Self-efficacy Data.”Science Education 95: 258–280.

Boone, J. W., and K. Scantlebury. 2006. “The Role of Rasch Analysis when Conducting Sci-ence Education Research Utilizing Multiple-choice Tests.” Science Education 90:253–269.

Bord, R. J., and R. E. O’Connor. 1997. “The Gender Gap in Environmental Attitudes: TheCase of Perceived Vulnerability to Risk.” Social Science Quarterly 78: 830–840.

Cavas, B., P. Cavas, C. Tekkaya, J. Çakıroğlu, and T. Kesercioglu. 2009. “Turkish Students’Views on Environmental Challenges with Respect to Gender: An analysis of ROSEData.” Science Education International 20: 69–78.

Chu, H., E. Lee, H. Ko, D. Shin, M. Lee, B. Min, and K. Kang. 2007. “Korean Year 2 Chil-dren’s Environmental Literacy: A Prerequisite for a Korean Environmental EducationCurriculum.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (6): 731–746.

Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental Literacy in America. Washington, DC: The National Envi-ronmental Education Training Foundation.

Disinger, J. F., and C. E. Roth. 1992. “Environmental Literacy.” ERIC/CSMEE Digest.Accessed April 10, 2007 http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2

Erdogan, M. 2009. “Fifth Grade Students’ Environmental Literacy and the Factors AffectingStudents’ Environmentally Responsible Behaviours.” Unpublished doctoral diss., MiddleEast Technical University, Turkey.

Erdogan, M., and A. Ok. 2011. “An Assessment of Turkish Young Pupils’ EnvironmentalLiteracy: A Nationwide Survey.” International Journal of Science Education 33 (17):2375–2406.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. 1992. “Reliability, Separation, Trata Statistics.” Rasch Measurement Trans-actions 6 (3): 238. http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt63i.htm

Goldman, D., B. Yavetz, and S. Peer. 2006. “Environmental Literacy in Teacher Training inIsrael: Environmental Behaviour of New Students.” Journal of Environmental Education38 (1): 3–22.

Gurevitz, R. 2000. “Affective Approaches to Environmental Education: Going beyond theImagined Worlds of Childhood?” Ethics, Place and Environment 3 (3): 253–268.

Harvey, G. 1977. “A Conceptualization of Environmental Education.” In A Report on theNorth American Regional Seminar on Environmental Education, edited by J. Aldrich, A.Blackburn, and G. Abel, 66–72. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Math-ematics, and Environmental Education.

Hsu, S., and R. E. Roth. 1999. “Predicting Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ ResponsibleEnvironmental Behaviour through Environmental Literacy Variables.” Journal of Envi-ronmental Education 30: 11–19.

224 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 25: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Huang, H., and L. Yore. 2003. “A Comparative Study of Canadian and Taiwanese Grade 5Children’s Environmental Behaviours, Attitudes, Concerns, Emotional Dispositions, andKnowledge.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 1: 419–448.

Hungerford, H. R., and T. L. Volk. 1990. “Changing Learner Behavior through Environmen-tal Education.” Journal of Environmental Education 21 (3): 8–22.

Istanbullu, R. A. 2008. “Investigation of Environmental Literacy of 6th Grades at a PrivateSchool.” Unpublished master’s diss., Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Jensen, B. B. 2002. “Knowledge, Action and Pro-environmental Behaviour.” EnvironmentalEducation Research 8 (3): 325–334.

Jensen, B. B., and K. Schnack. 2006. “The Action Competence Approach in EnvironmentalEducation.” Environmental Education Research 12 (3–4): 471–486.

Kahyaoglu, E. 2011. “An Assessment of Environmental Literacy of Turkish Science andTechnology Teachers.” Unpublished diss., Middle East Technical University, Ankara,Turkey.

Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why do People act Environmentallyand What are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behaviour?” Environmental EducationResearch 8: 239–260.

Kortenkamp, C. P., and G. L. Moore. 2001. “Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism: MoralReasoning about Ecological Commons Dilemmas.” Journal of Environmental Psychol-ogy 21: 261–272.

Linacre, J. M. 2009. Winsteps® (Version 3.69.0) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, Oregon:Winsteps.com. Accessed August 1, 2009 http://www.winsteps.com/.

Linacre, J. M. 2011. “A User’s Guide to Winstpes, Ministep Rasch – Model ComputerProgrammes: Program Manual.” http://www.winsteps.com

Makki, M. H., F. Abd-el-Khalick, and S. Boujaoude. 2003. “Lebanese Secondary SchoolStudents’ Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes.” Environmental Education Research9 (1): 21–33.

McBeth, B., H. Hungerford, T. Marcinkowski, T. Volk, and R. Meyers. 2008. “NationalEnvironmental Literacy Assessment Project: Year 1.” National Baseline Study of MiddleGrades Students Final Research Report.

McBeth, B., and T. Volk. 2009. “The National Environmental Literacy Project: A BaselineStudy of Middle Grade Students in the United States.” The Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 41 (1): 55–67.

Michail, S., A. G. Stamou, and G. Stamou. 2006. “Greek Primary School Teachers’ Under-standing of Current Environmental Issues: An Exploration of their EnvironmentalKnowledge and Images of Nature.” Science Education 91: 244–259.

Morrone, M., K. Mancl, and K. Carr. 2001. “Development of a Metric to Test Group Differ-ences in Ecological Knowledge as One Component of Environmental Literacy.” TheJournal of Environmental Education 32: 33–42.

North American Association of Environmental Educators (NAAEE). 2011. Developing aFramework for Assessing Environmental Literacy: Executive Summary.

Negev, M., G. Sagy, Y. Garb, S. Salzberg, and A. Tal. 2008. “Evaluating the EnvironmentalLiteracy of Israeli Elementary and High School Students.” The Journal of environmentalEducation 39: 3–20.

O’Brein. 2007. “Indications of Environmental Literacy: Using a New Survey Instrument toMeasure Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes of University-aged Students.” Master’sdiss., Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Okesli, F. 2008. “Relationship between Primary School Students’ Environmental Literacyand Selected Variables in Bodrum.” Unpublished Master’s diss., Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Ankara, Turkey.

Orams, M. B. 1997. “The Effectiveness of Environmental Education: Can we Turn Touristsinto Greenies?” Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3: 295–306.

Orr, D. W. 2004. Earth in Mind on Education, Environment and the Human Prospect. IslandPress.

Peer, S., D. Goldman, and B. Yavetz. 2007. “Environmental Literacy in Teacher Training:Attitudes, Knowledge, and Environmental Behaviour of Beginning Students.” Journal ofEnvironmental Education 39: 45–60.

Environmental Education Research 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 26: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Rasch, G. 1960. Probabilistic Models for some Intelligence and Attainment Tests (Copenha-gen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with forewordand afterword by B. D. Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Riechard, D. E., and S. J. Peterson. 1998. “Perception of Environmental Risk Related toGender, Community Socioeconomic Setting, Age, and Locus of Control.” The Journalof Environmental Education 30: 11–19.

Robinson, M. C., and D. Crowther. 2001. “Knowledge and Attitudes of Ugandan Pre-serviceScience and Mathematics Teachers Toward Global and Ugandan Science-and Technol-ogy-based Problems and/or Threats.” Bulletin of Science, Technology Society 27:142–153.

Roth, C. E. 1968. On the Road to Conservation, 38–41. Massachusetts: Audubon.Roth, C. E. 1992. “Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution, and Directions in the

1990’s.” Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environ-mental education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 235).

Sarigollu, E. 2009. “A Cross-country Exploration of Environmental Attitudes.” Environmentand Behaviour 41: 365–386.

Simmons, D. 1995. “Working Paper #2: Developing a Framework for National Environmen-tal Education Standards.” In Papers on the Development of Environmental EducationStandards, 10–58. Troy, OH: NAAEE.

Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and EnvironmentalConcern.” Environment and Behaviour 25: 322–348.

Teksoz, G., E. Sahin, and C. Oztekin-Tekkaya. 2012. “Modelling Environmental Literacy ofUniversity Students.” The Journal of Science Education and Technology 21: 157–166.

Tikka, P. M., M. T. Kuitunen, and S. M. Tynys. 2000. “Effects of Educational Backgroundon Students’ Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment.” The Jour-nal of Environmental Education 31: 12–20.

Tilbury, D. 1995. “Environmental Education for Sustainability: Defining the New Focus ofEnvironmental Education in the 1990s.” Environmental Education Research 1 (2):195–212.

Tosunoglu C. 1993. “A Study on the Dimensions and Determinants of Environmental Atti-tudes.” PhD diss., Middle East Technical University.

Tsevreni, I. 2011. “Towards an Environmental Education Without Scientific Knowledge: AnAttempt to Create an Action Model based on Children’s Experiences, Emotions and Per-ceptions about their Environment.” Environmental Education Research 17 (1): 53–67.

Tuncer, G., C. Tekkaya, S. Sungur, J. Cakiroglu, H. Ertepinar, and M. Kaplowitz. 2009.“Assessing Pre-service Teachers’ Environmental Literacy in Turkey as a Mean toDevelop Teacher Education Programmes.” International Journal of Educational Develop-ment 29: 426–436.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1972. United Nations Conference on theHuman Environment. Accessed November 4, 2008 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Mul-tilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97

UNESCO/UNEP. 1975. The Belgrade Charter: A Global Framework for EnvironmentalEducation.

Varisli. 2009. “Evaluating 8th Grade Students’ Environmental Literacy: The Role Sociode-mographical Variables.” Unpublished Master’s diss., Middle East Technical University,Ankara, Turkey.

Vlaardingerbroek, B., and T. G. N. Taylor. 2007. “The Environmental Knowledge and Atti-tudes of Prospective Teachers in Lebanon: A Comparative Study.” InternationalResearch in Geographical and Environmental Education 16: 120–134.

Wilson, M. 1989. “Saltus: A Psychometric Model of Discontinuity in Cognitive Develop-ment.” Psychological Bulletin 105 (2): 276–289.

Worsley, A., and G. Skrzypiec. 1998. “Environmental Attitudes of Senior Secondary SchoolStudents in South Australia.” Global Environmental Change 8: 209–255.

Wright, B. D., and G. A. Douglas. 1977. “Conditional versus Unconditional Procedures forSample-free Item Analysis.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 37 (3):573–586.

Wright, B. D., and G. N. Masters. 1982. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chi-cago, IL: Measurement Evaluation and Statistical Analysis Press.

226 G.T. Teksoz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 27: An evaluation of the environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Turkey through Rasch analysis

Yavetz, B., D. Goldman, and S. Pe’er. 2009. “Environmental Literacy of Pre-service Teach-ers in Israel: A Comparison Between Students at the Onset and End of their Studies.”Environmental Education Research 15: 393–415.

Yeung, S. P. 2002. “Teaching Approaches and the Development of Responsible Environmen-tal Behaviour: The Case of Hong Kong.” Ethics, Place and Environment 5 (3): 239–269.

Yilmaz, O. W, J. Boone, and H. O. Andersen. 2004. “Views of Elementary and MiddleSchool Turkish Students Toward Environmental Issues.” International Journal of ScienceEducation 26 (12): 1527–1546.

Zelezny, L. C., P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. “Elaborating on Gender Differences inEnvironmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56: 443–457.

Environmental Education Research 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

16:

11 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014