SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1

The Role of Nature Observations in the Discovery-Based Learning of Biology Concepts: The Case of Forest

Kalender Arıkan(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9862-9629
Pages
56–66
Publication Date
2026-01-23
🏛️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 revealed a clear development in perceptions of the forest from T1 to T3.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine how secondary school students develop knowledge of the concept of “forest” through guided discovery-based nature observation activities, and to evaluate the applicability of this method in teaching.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Participants were 25 tenth-grade students who defined the forest one week before the nature observation (T1) and then engaged in two four-hour observation sessions (T2 and T3) in the forest of Hacettepe University’s Beytepe Campus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed a clear development in perceptions of the forest from T1 to T3.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Conceptual development · biodiversity · outdoor activities

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine how secondary school students develop knowledge of the concept of “forest” through guided discovery-based nature observation activities, and to evaluate the applicability of this method in teaching. Participants were 25 tenth-grade students who defined the forest one week before the nature observation (T1) and then engaged in two four-hour observation sessions (T2 and T3) in the forest of Hacettepe University’s Beytepe Campus. No prior information about forests was provided; instead, students were asked to record observations in nature that could inform their definitions. Data were analyzed through content analysis with MAXQDA, and codes were compared across the three stages. According to results, the number of codes, words, and characters in T3 increased significantly compared to T1 and T2 (p < 0.01). The findings revealed a clear development in perceptions of the forest from T1 to T3. Students’ statements mainly reflected general natural elements (tree, conservation) and emotional - perceptual expressions (quiet, dark) at T1. After the second stage (T2), attention shifted to direct observations, including concrete components (trunk, branch, root, leaf, mushroom, ant) and detailed descriptions. These observations were integrated with system-level ecological terms such as “ecosystem,” “biodiversity,” “water cycle,” “carbon,” and “environmental balance” at T3. Moreover, expressions related to human impact and environmental ethics - such as “human impact,” “logging,” “fire,” and “economic importance”- became prominent at T3. This developmental trajectory demonstrates that nature observation supported with guided discovery learning initially activates emotional and perceptual awareness, strengthens observational skills during the process, and ultimately contributes to the internalization of abstract forest and related concepts. Importantly, the study also highlights the potential applicability of this approach in formal school settings, particularly within biology curricula, to foster both conceptual understanding and environmental awareness.

Özet

The aim of this study is to examine how secondary school students develop knowledge of the concept of “forest” through guided discovery-based nature observation activities, and to evaluate the applicability of this method in teaching. Participants were 25 tenth-grade students who defined the forest one week before the nature observation (T1) and then engaged in two four-hour observation sessions (T2 and T3) in the forest of Hacettepe University’s Beytepe Campus. No prior information about forests was provided; instead, students were asked to record observations in nature that could inform their definitions. Data were analyzed through content analysis with MAXQDA, and codes were compared across the three stages. According to results, the number of codes, words, and characters in T3 increased significantly compared to T1 and T2 (p < 0.01). The findings revealed a clear development in perceptions of the forest from T1 to T3. Students’ statements mainly reflected general natural elements (tree, conservation) and emotional - perceptual expressions (quiet, dark) at T1. After the second stage (T2), attention shifted to direct observations, including concrete components (trunk, branch, root, leaf, mushroom, ant) and detailed descriptions. These observations were integrated with system-level ecological terms such as “ecosystem,” “biodiversity,” “water cycle,” “carbon,” and “environmental balance” at T3. Moreover, expressions related to human impact and environmental ethics - such as “human impact,” “logging,” “fire,” and “economic importance”- became prominent at T3. This developmental trajectory demonstrates that nature observation supported with guided discovery learning initially activates emotional and perceptual awareness, strengthens observational skills during the process, and ultimately contributes to the internalization of abstract forest and related concepts. Importantly, the study also highlights the potential applicability of this approach in formal school settings, particularly within biology curricula, to foster both conceptual understanding and environmental awareness.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arıkan, K. (2026). The Role of Nature Observations in the Discovery-Based Learning of Biology Concepts: The Case of Forest. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.16986/hunefd.1765615

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
  2. Allen, J. C., & Barnes, D. F. (1985). The causes of deforestation in developing countries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 75(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1985.tb00079.x
  3. Arıkan, K. (2023). Ortaöğretim biyoloji öğretim programında orman kavramı. Düzce Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Ormancılık Dergisi, 19(1), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1244721
  4. Arora, N. K., & Fatima, T. (2024). Environmental sustainability and biotechnology: Opportunities and challenges. Environmental Sustainability, 7(2), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-024-00317-9
  5. Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2009). Introducing a fifth pedagogy: Experience‐based strategies for facilitating learning in natural environments. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802711282
  6. Baranzini, A., Faust, A. K., & Huberman, D. (2010). Tropical forest conservation: Attitudes and preferences. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(5), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.02.008
  7. Beery, T., & Wolf-Watz, D. (2014). Nature to place: Rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.006
  8. Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2014.213a
  9. Black, P. N. (2020). A revolution in biochemistry and molecular biology education informed by basic research to meet the demands of 21st century career paths. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 295(31), 10653–10661. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.aw120.011104
  10. Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S., & Pfaff, A. (2020). The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
  11. Bouwman, A. F., & Leemans, R. (1995). The role of forest soils in the global carbon cycle. In Carbon forms and functions in forest soils (pp. 503–525). https://doi.org/10.2136/1995.carbonforms.c23
  12. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
  13. Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040402
  14. Committee on a New Biology for the 21st Century (CNB). (2009). A new biology for the 21st century: Ensuring the United States leads the coming biology revolution. National Research Council. https://doi.org/10.17226/12764
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  16. Cumming, F., & Nash, M. (2015). An Australian perspective of a forest school: Shaping a sense of place to support learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(4), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2015.1010071
  17. Das, S., Ray, M. K., Panday, D., & Mishra, P. K. (2023). Role of biotechnology in creating sustainable agriculture. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, 2(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000069
  18. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
  19. Fahey, T. J., Woodbury, P. B., Battles, J. J., Goodale, C. L., Hamburg, S. P., Ollinger, S. V., & Woodall, C. W. (2010). Forest carbon storage: Ecology, management, and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(5), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1890/080169
  20. Harwood, D., Huang, M., & Somma, M. (2022). “We’re trying to find cool things in the forest” – Exploring children’s curiosity and creativity in the outdoors. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 15(1), 33–42.
  21. Honomichl, R. D., & Chen, Z. (2012). The role of guidance in children's discovery learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(6), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1199
  22. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
  23. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
  24. Karan, E. (2023). Discovery-based approach combined with active learning to improve student learning experiences for STEM students. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 3(4), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.58557/(ijeh).v3i4.163
  25. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
  26. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
  27. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.
  28. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
  29. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
  30. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world. Universities Press.
  31. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
  32. McAteer, L., Roche, J., & Kelly, Á. M. (2023). Renewing an undergraduate science curriculum for the 21st century. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1270941. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1270941
  33. Miller, K. M., & Yoon, S. A. (2023). Teaching complexity in biology through agent-based simulations: The relationship between students’ knowledge of complex systems and metamodeling knowledge. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1198307. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1198307
  34. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2018). Biyoloji dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  35. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024). Türkiye yüzyılı Maarif modeli; Biyoloji dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  36. Myers, N. (2023). Tropical deforestation: Rates and patterns. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003428190-3
  37. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032
  38. Noviyanti, E., Rusdi, R., & Ristanto, R. H. (2019). Guided discovery learning based on internet and self concept: Enhancing students’ critical thinking in biology. Indonesian Journal of Biology Education, 2(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.31002/ijobe.v2i1.1196
  39. Palmberg, I. E., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598649
  40. Raab, K., & Bogner, F. X. (2020). Learning about forest ecosystems: Comparing indoor and outdoor instruction. Forests, 11(9), 91265. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091265
  41. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London.
  42. Rodríguez-Muñoz, C., & Huincahue, J. (2024). Interdisciplinary practices for teaching biology: A systematic review. Journal of Biological Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2024.2399516
  43. Schilhab, T. (2021). Nature experiences in science education in school: Review featuring learning gains, investments, and costs in view of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Education, 6, 739408. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.739408
  44. Schneiderhan-Opel, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2021). Cannot see the forest for the trees? Comparing learning outcomes of a field trip vs. a classroom approach. Forests, 12(9), 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091265
  45. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.
  46. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage.
  47. Teker, S., Kurt, M., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2017). “Işığın ve sesin yayılması” ünitesini buluş yoluyla öğrenmenin öğrenci başarısı ve tutumuna etkisi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (27), 835–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.294931
  48. Ünal, G., & Ergin, Ö. (2006). Buluş yoluyla fen öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, öğrenme yaklaşımlarına ve tutumlarına etkisi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(1), 36–52.
  49. Wilke, R. R., & Straits, W. J. (2001). The effects of discovery learning in a lower-division biology course. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.2.62
  50. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Vintage.