SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2

Examining the Effect of Teaching Greenhouse Effect to Secondary School Students With System Dynamics Tools in Terms of Different Variables

Sistem Dinamikleri Araçları ile Sera Etkisi Konusunun Ortaokul Öğrencilerine Öğretilmesinin Farklı Değişkenler Açısından Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Melda Demirtaş(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4823-1241
İbrahim Ünal(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8497-4459
Gaye Ceyhan(Boğaziçi Üniversitesi)0000-0003-1312-3547
Pages
612–639
Publication Date
2025-12-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicated that system dynamics tools significantly enhanced students' understanding of cause-and-effect relationships and their perception of constructivist learning environments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study investigated the impact of teaching the greenhouse effect with system dynamics tools to eighth-grade middle school students enrolled in an environmental education and climate change course on various variables.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study sample consisted of 194 students enrolled in an environmental education and climate change course at a public school in Malatya.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicated that system dynamics tools significantly enhanced students' understanding of cause-and-effect relationships and their perception of constructivist learning environments.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sistem dinamikleri araçları · ortaokul öğrencileri · sera etkisi

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of teaching the greenhouse effect with system dynamics tools to eighth-grade middle school students enrolled in an environmental education and climate change course on various variables. The study employed a quasi-experimental design based on a pretest-posttest model with experimental and control groups. The study sample consisted of 194 students enrolled in an environmental education and climate change course at a public school in Malatya. Three data collection tools were used to address the research questions: the Cause-and-Effect Relationship Scale, the Constructivist Learning Environment Scale, and the Global Warming Attitude Scale. The findings indicated that system dynamics tools significantly enhanced students' understanding of cause-and-effect relationships and their perception of constructivist learning environments. While no statistically significant between-group difference was found for global warming attitudes post-intervention, the experimental group showed substantial improvement in attitude scores, demonstrating the potential of system dynamics tools in fostering both cognitive and affective learning outcomes in environmental education. These results suggest that incorporating system dynamics approaches into science curricula could enhance students’ systems thinking capabilities and create more engaging learning environments for complex environmental topics, though longer intervention periods may be needed to achieve sustained attitudinal changes.

Özet

Bu çalışma, çevre eğitimi ve iklim değişikliği dersine kayıtlı sekizinci sınıf ortaokul öğrencilerine sistem dinamiği araçlarıyla sera etkisinin öğretilmesinin çeşitli değişkenler üzerindeki etkisini araştırmıştır. Çalışma, deney ve kontrol gruplarını içeren ön test-son test modeline dayalı yarı deneysel bir tasarım kullanmıştır. Çalışma örneklemi, Malatya'daki bir devlet okulunda çevre eğitimi ve iklim değişikliği dersine kayıtlı 194 öğrenciden oluşmuştur. Araştırma sorularını ele almak için üç veri toplama aracı kullanılmıştır: Neden-Sonuç İlişkisi Ölçeği, Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Ortamı Ölçeği ve Küresel Isınma Tutum Ölçeği. Bulgular, sistem dinamiği araçlarının öğrencilerin neden-sonuç ilişkilerini anlamalarını ve yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamlarına ilişkin algılarını önemli ölçüde geliştirdiğini göstermiştir. Müdahale sonrası küresel ısınma tutumları açısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamakla birlikte, deney grubu tutum puanlarında önemli bir iyileşme göstermiş ve sistem dinamiği araçlarının çevre eğitiminde hem bilişsel hem de duyuşsal öğrenme çıktılarını geliştirme potansiyelini ortaya koymuştur. Bu sonuçlar, sistem dinamiği yaklaşımlarının fen müfredatına dahil edilmesinin, öğrencilerin sistem düşüncesi becerilerini geliştirebileceğini ve karmaşık çevre konuları için daha ilgi çekici öğrenme ortamları yaratabileceğini göstermektedir, ancak tutum değişikliklerinin sürdürülebilir olması için daha uzun müdahale süreleri gerekebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirtaş, M., Ünal, İ., Ceyhan, G. (2025). Examining the Effect of Teaching Greenhouse Effect to Secondary School Students With System Dynamics Tools in Terms of Different Variables. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2, 612–639. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1786858

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Aksoy, A., & Erten, S. (2022). A four-tier diagnostic test to determine pre-service science teachers’ misconception about global warming. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.747
  2. Anyanwu, R. N. (2015). An assessment of climate change science literacy and climate change pedagogical literacy of geography teachers in the Western Cape [Doctoral dissertation, University of Stellenbosch University]. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/c9e239fe-6ddd-46c5-b929-4608b8af7332/content
  3. Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
  4. Ballew, M. T., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A., Gustafson, A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Systems thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and attitudes through an ecological worldview. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17), 8214–8219. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819310116
  5. Bayram, C. (2014). High school students' views and attitudes on global warming (Publication No. 372157) [Master’s thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  6. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General systems theory: Foundation, development, applications (1st ed.). George Baziller.
  7. Bielik, T., Delen, I., Krell, M., & Assaraf, O. B. Z. (2023). Characterising the literature on the teaching and learning of system thinking and complexity in STEM education: A bibliometric analysis and research synthesis. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00087-9
  8. Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23(2–3), 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.366
  9. Budak, U. S., & Ceyhan, G. D. (2024). Research trends on systems thinking approach in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 46(5), 485-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2245106
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2003). İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (3rd ed.). Pegem A.
  11. Bryan, A. (2020). Affective pedagogies: Foregrounding emotion in climate change education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 30, 8-30. https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-30/affective-pedagogies-foregrounding-emotion-climate-change-education
  12. Cartwright, T. J., Hemler, D., & Magee, P. A. (2021). Investigating weather, climate, and climate change understanding of Appalachian middle-level students. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 25(2), 6–29. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/20984
  13. Ceyhan, G. D., & Budak, U. S. (2025). Exploring how preservice science and mathematics teachers use systems dynamics tools to explain sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-2024-0518
  14. Ceyhan, G. D., Budak, U. S., Gungor Cabbar, B., Ertugrul, N., & Genc, B. (2025). Using a systems thinking approach for a climate change education training program in teacher education. Science Activities: Projects and Curriculum Ideas in STEM Classrooms, 62(4), 267-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2025.2533779
  15. Cevahir, E. (2020). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi rehberi. Kibele.
  16. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
  17. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  18. Çelikten, S. (2022). Properties of recycled steel fibre reinforced expanded perlite based geopolymer mortars. Advances in Concrete Construction, 13(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2022.13.1.025
  19. Demssie, Y. N., Biemans, H. J., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2023). Fostering students’ systems thinking competence for sustainability by using multiple real-world learning approaches. Environmental Education Research, 29(2), 261–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2141692
  20. Doganca Kucuk, Z., & Saysel, A. K. (2018). Developing seventh grade students’ understanding of complex environmental problems with systems tools and representations: a quasi-experimental study. Research in Science Education, 48, 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9620-8
  21. Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth‐graders and sixth‐graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749313
  22. Fer, S., & Cırık, İ. (2006). Öğretmenlerde ve öğrencilerde yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamı ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 1–26. https://toad.halileksi.net/olcek/ogretmenlerde-ve-ogrencilerde-yapilandirmaci-ogrenme-ortami-olcegi/
  23. Fisher, D. M., & Systems Thinking Association. (2023). Systems thinking activities used in K-12 for up to two decades. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1059733. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1059733
  24. Forrester, J. W. (2007). System dynamics—the next fifty years. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 23(2‐3), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.381
  25. Frey, S., Beege, M., Renkl, A., & Riess, W. (2025). The impact of system models on systems thinking in the context of climate change in elementary school. Systems, 13(4), 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13040220
  26. Gopalan, M., Rosinger, K., & Ahn, J. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903302
  27. Hammond, D. (2005). Philosophical and ethical foundations of systems thinking. Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 3(2), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v3i2.20
  28. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7
  29. Hung, D. T., Banfield, C. C., Dorodnikov, M., & Sauer, D. (2022). Improved water and rice residue managements reduce greenhouse gas emissions from paddy soil and increase rice yields. Paddy and Water Environment, 20(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00876-0
  30. IPCC. (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In H. Lee & J. Romero (Eds.), Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–34). IPCC.
  31. Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Ruane, A. C., Elliott, J., Balkovic, J., Castillo, O.,. & Rosenzweig, C. (2021). Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nature Food, 2(11), 873–885. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00400-y
  32. Jordan, R. C., Sorensen, A. E., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2014). A conceptual representation to support ecological systems learning. Natural Sciences Education, 43(1), 141-146. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2014.09.0019
  33. Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (17th ed.) Nobel.
  34. Karayol, S. A., & Umdu Topsakal, Ü. (2025). Developing systems thinking skills with a global climate change module: A mixed methods design. Education Sciences, 15(7), 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070794
  35. Liu, S. C. (2022). Futures-Focused Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: An Exploration into Students’ Perceptions of the Climate Future. In: Hsu, YS., Tytler, R., White, P.J. (eds) Innovative Approaches to Socioscientific Issues and Sustainability Education. Learning Sciences for Higher Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1840-7_16
  36. McCowan, T. (2023). Internationalisation and climate impacts of higher education: Towards an analytical framework. Journal of Studies in International Education, 27(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153231164843
  37. Nuhoğlu, H. (2008). The effect of the system dynamics approach on students attitude, scientific success and different skills in middle school science and technology course (Publication No. 226872) [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  38. Nuhoğlu, H. (2020). The effect of deduction and induction methods used in modelling current environmental issues with system dynamics approach in science education. Participatory Educational Research, 7(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.7.7.1
  39. Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Mixed methods research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 305–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262619
  40. Pooley, J. A., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916500325007
  41. Price, P. C., Rajiv, S. J., Chiang, I. A., Leighton, D. C., & Cuttler, C. (2017), Research methods in psychology (3rd American edition). Press Books. https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/
  42. Sterman, J. (2002). All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 18(4), 501-531. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.261
  43. Sterman, J. D., & Sweeney, L. B. (2002). Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 18(2), 207-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.242
  44. Stocker, B. D., Roth, R., Joos, F., Spahni, R., Steinacher, M., Zaehle, S.,. & Prentice, I. C. (2013). Multiple greenhouse-gas feedbacks from the land biosphere under future climate change scenarios. Nature Climate Change, 3(7), 666–672. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1864
  45. Strapasson, A., Ferreira, M., Cruz-Cano, D., Woods, J., do Nascimento Maia Soares, M. P., & da Silva Filho, O. L. (2022). The use of system dynamics for energy and environmental education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(5), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00309-3
  46. Strayhorn, T. L. (2023). Estimating the effects of an anti-racist intervention on campus administrators’ beliefs about racial equity and justice: a quasi-experimental study. Journal for Multicultural Education, 17(3), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-09-2022-0118
  47. Tecim, V. (2004). Sistem yaklaşımı ve soft sistem düşüncesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 75–100.
  48. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00017-7
  49. Tosun, İ. E., Ormancı, Ü., & İlkörücü, Ş. (2025). Meta-analysis of systems thinking studies in science education. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 64, 2476–2505. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1631789
  50. Trott, C. D. (2022). Climate change education for transformation: Exploring the affective and attitudinal dimensions of children’s learning and action. Environmental Education Research, 28(7), 1023-1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.2007223
  51. Vuorio, E., Pernaa, J., & Aksela, M. (2024). Lessons for sustainable science education: a study on chemists’ use of systems thinking across ecological, economic, and social domains. Education Sciences, 14(7), 741. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070741
  52. York, S., Lavi, R., Dori, Y. J., & Orgill, M. (2019). Applications of systems thinking in STEM education. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2742–2751. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00261
  53. Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Ruane, A. C., Elliott, J., Balkovic, J., Castillo, O.,. & Rosenzweig, C. (2021). Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nature Food, 2(11), 873–885. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00400-y
  54. Stocker, B. D., Roth, R., Joos, F., Spahni, R., Steinacher, M., Zaehle, S.,. & Prentice, I. C. (2013). Multiple greenhouse-gas feedbacks from the land biosphere under future climate change scenarios. Nature Climate Change, 3(7), 666–672. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1864