SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Social Scientific Centered Issues / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Prospective Science Teachers’ Moral Reasoning About Environmental Issues and The Factors That Affect Their Moral Reasoning on This Topic

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Çevre Sorunlarına Karşı Ahlaki Muhakemeleri ve Bunları Etkileyen Faktörler

Nurcan Uzel(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5334-0103
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-06-30
🏛️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)

We also identified 12 factors that had an impact on the participants’ moral reasoning, most importantly the economy, human health and future, duty and responsibility, environmental values, global power balances etc.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to identify prospective science teachers’ moral reasoning about environmental issues as well as the factors that affect this moral reasoning.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group was made up of 213 prospective science teachers studying the 4th year of university at four different state universities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We also identified 12 factors that had an impact on the participants’ moral reasoning, most importantly the economy, human health and future, duty and responsibility, environmental values, global power balances etc.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Environmental ethics · moral reasoning · environmental issues

Abstract

This study aims to identify prospective science teachers’ moral reasoning about environmental issues as well as the factors that affect this moral reasoning. The qualitative research method was used to achieve this goal. The study group was made up of 213 prospective science teachers studying the 4th year of university at four different state universities. Two scenarios, about the water scarcity problem and climate change, were used to ascertain the moral reasoning patterns of the trainee teachers. The “Moral Decision-Making Interview (MDMI)” protocol developed by Sadler (2003) was used to look into the factors that affect the moral reasoning patterns of the participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 14 prospective teachers, 7 males and 7 females. Content analysis was used for the analysis of the data collected. The results of the study showed that the prospective science teachers’ answers to the scenarios about the water scarcity problem and climate change were more centred around non-environmental moral reasoning. When comparing the participants’ approach by how ecocentric or anthropocentric they were, we identified that the anthropocentric approach was more common. We also identified 12 factors that had an impact on the participants’ moral reasoning, most importantly the economy, human health and future, duty and responsibility, environmental values, global power balances etc.

Özet

Bu araştırmada fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre sorunlarına karşı gösterdikleri ahlaki muhakemelerin ve bu ahlaki muhakemeleri etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu dört farklı devlet üniversitesinin 4. sınıfında okuyan 213 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ahlaki muhakeme örüntülerini belirlemek için su sorunu ve iklim değişikliği konulu iki senaryodan yararlanılmıştır. Ayrıca Sadler (2003) tarafından geliştirilen “Moral Decision-Making Interview (MDMI)” protokolü adayların ahlaki muhakeme örüntülerini etkileyen faktörleri araştırmak için kullanılmıştır. Toplanan verilerin analizinde içerik analizinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının su sorunu ve iklim değişikliği konulu senaryolara verdikleri cevapların daha çok çevresel olmayan ahlaki muhakemede yoğunlaştığı anlaşılmıştır. Adayların çevre konularına ekosentrik ve antroposentrik olarak yaklaşımları değerlendirildiğinde ise ekosentriğe göre oldukça yüksek oranda antroposentrik bir yaklaşımın olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca adayların ahlaki muhakemeleri üzerinde başlıca ekonomi, insan sağlığı ve geleceği, görev ve sorumluluk, çevresel değerler, dünyadaki dengeler, vb. olmak üzere 12 faktörün etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uzel, N. (2025). Prospective Science Teachers’ Moral Reasoning About Environmental Issues and The Factors That Affect Their Moral Reasoning on This Topic. Social Scientific Centered Issues, Volume: 7 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.71249/ssci.1651097

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Adger, W. N., Butler, C., & Walker-Springett, K. (2017). Moral reasoning in adaptation to climate change, Environmental Politics, 26(3), 371-390.
  2. Amérigo, M., Aragonés, J. I., De Frutos, B. Sevillano, V., & Cortés, B. (2007). Underlying dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental beliefs. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 97-103.
  3. Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21-32.
  4. Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1999). The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivories. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 415-421.
  5. Bütün, M. (2012). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının uygulanan zenginleştirilmiş program sürecinde matematiği öğretme bilgilerinin gelişimi. Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
  6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  7. Corner, A., & Randall, A. (2011). Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change-Human And Policy Dimensions, 21(3), 1005-1014.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  10. Ekiz, D. (2013). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  11. Erten, S. (2004). Çevre eğitimi ve çevre bilinci nedir, çevre eğitimi nasıl olmalıdır? Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi, Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Yayın Organı, Sayı 65/66, 2006/25 Ankara.
  12. Erten, S. (2008). Insights to ecocentric, anthropocentric, and antipathetic attitudes towards environment in diverse cultures. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 141-156.
  13. Gerçek, C. (2016). Üniversite öğrencilerinin çevre etiğine yönelik algıları. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(59), 1100-1107.
  14. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
  15. Kahn, P. H. (1997). Children's moral and ecological reasoning about the Prince William Sound Oil Spill. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 1091-1096.
  16. Karpiak, C. P., & Baril, G. L. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 203-208.
  17. Kellert, S. R. (1991). Japanese perceptions of wildlife. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 297-308.
  18. Kılınç, A. (2010). Can project-based learning close the gap? Turkish student teachers and proenvironmental behaviors. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(4), 495-509.
  19. Kırkpınar Özsoy, N., & Çini, P. (2020). Antroposentrik küresel çevre politikalarının ekosentrik çevre etiği görüşü çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Alternatif Politika, 12(1), 20-49.
  20. Kopnina, H. (2019). Ecocentric education: student reflections on anthropocentrism-ecocentrism continuum and justice. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 5-23.
  21. Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261-272.
  22. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953.
  23. Littledyke, M. (2004). Primary children’s views on science and environmental issues: Examples of environmental cognitive and moral development. Environmental Education Research, 10(2), 217-235.
  24. Melville, W., Yaxley, B., & Wallace, J. (2007). Virtues, teacher professional expertise, and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 95-109.
  25. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Case study in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  26. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  27. Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47, 1275-1304.
  28. Powys Whyte, K. & Cuomo, C. J. (2017). Ethics of caring in environmental ethics- Indigenous and feminist philosophies. In S. M. Gardiner & A. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental ethics, pp. 234-247, New York: Oxford University Press.
  29. Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: The influence of morality and content knowledge. Doctoral Thesis, UMI Number: 3080007, University of South Florida, USA.
  30. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
  31. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
  32. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
  33. Saka, M. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının çevre etiği yaklaşımlarının yordayıcısı olarak eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(3), 100-115.
  34. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.
  35. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 5(3), 65-84.
  36. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
  37. Sternäng L., & Lundholm, C. (2011). Climate change and morality: Students’ perspectives on the individual and society. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1131-1148.
  38. Surmeli, H., & Saka, M. (2013). Preservice teachers’ anthropocentric, biocentric, and ecocentric environmental ethics approaches. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), 159-163.
  39. Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.
  40. Tuncay, B. (2010). Moral reasoning of pre-service science teachers toward local and non-local environmental problems. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimsel Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  41. Tuncay, B., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Tuncer-Teksoz, G. (2012). Moral reasoning patterns and influential factors in the context of environmental problems. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 485-505.
  42. Uzel, N. (2020). Impact of a SSI Program on Prospective Teachers’ Character and Values for Global Citizens. The International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 1-16.
  43. Uzel, N., & Gül, A. (2023). Pre-service Biology Teachers’ Moral Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues and Factors Affecting Their Moral Reasoning. Bulletin of Educational Studies, 2(1), 26-36.
  44. Ünal, N. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions toward global versus local environmental issues. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  45. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.