SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3

Determination of the difference between environmental attitudes of 1st and 4th year students of landscape architecture

Emine TARAKÇI EREN
Tuğba DÜZENLİ
Pages
551–565
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️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)

It was determined in the study that the environmental behavior (46.9875) and environmental thought (52.0375) and total environmental attitude scores (99.025) of the senior students were higher when compared to the freshmen (90.3375).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study aimed to determine the difference between the environmental attitudes of freshmen and senior students attending Karadeniz Technical University Landscape Architecture Department in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group included 160 freshmen and senior students at KTU Landscape Architecture.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was determined in the study that the environmental behavior (46.9875) and environmental thought (52.0375) and total environmental attitude scores (99.025) of the senior students were higher when compared to the freshmen (90.3375).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the difference between the environmental attitudes of freshmen and senior students attending Karadeniz Technical University Landscape Architecture Department in Turkey. The study group included 160 freshmen and senior students at KTU Landscape Architecture. A scale developed by Uzun and Sağlam (2000) was employed as the environmental attitude scale. The scale includes 27 items in environmental behavior and environmental thought subscales. The environmental behavior subscale includes 13 items and the environmental thought subscale includes 14 items. The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient of the environmental behavior subscale was calculated as 0.855, and the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient of the environmental thought subscale was 0.812. Thus, it could be suggested that the scale was valid and reliable. It was determined in the study that the environmental behavior (46.9875) and environmental thought (52.0375) and total environmental attitude scores (99.025) of the senior students were higher when compared to the freshmen (90.3375).

🔖

Cite This Article

EREN, E. T., DÜZENLİ, T. (2022). Determination of the difference between environmental attitudes of 1st and 4th year students of landscape architecture. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3, 551–565. https://ajindex.com/articles/426308

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Akıllı, M., & Genç, M. (2015). Examination of middle school students’ subdimensions of environmental literacy in terms of various variables. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 5(2), 81-97.
  2. Alnıaçık, Ögdü, & Koç, Ö. G. F. (2009). Yeni Çevresel Paradigma Ölçeği İle Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Çevreye Yönelik Tutumlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Bölgesel Kalkınma Kongresi, 14-16.
  3. Alnıaçık, Ü. (2010). Çevreci yönelim, çevre dostu davranış ve demografik özellikler: üniversite öğrencileri üzerinde bir araştırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(20); 507-532.
  4. Alpak, E. M., Özkan, D. G., & Düzenli, T. (2018). Systems approach in landscape design: a studio work. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 593-611.
  5. Alpak, E. M., Düzenli, T., & Mumcu, S. (2020). Raising awareness of seating furniture design in landscape architecture education: physical, activity-use and meaning dimensions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-25.
  6. Altınöz, N. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlık düzeyleri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya. Aydın, M. (2000). Eğitim yönetimi. Ankara:
  7. Hatiboğlu Yayınevi.
  8. Ayvaz, Z. (1998). Çevre eğitiminde temel kavramlar el kitabı. İzmir:
  9. Çevre Koruma ve Araştırma Vakfı, Çevre Eğitim Merkezi Yayınları, (5). Aznar-Díaz, I., Hinojo-Lucena, F. J., Cáceres-Reche, M. P., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., & Romero-Rodríguez, J. M. (2019). Environmental Attitudes in Trainee Teachers in Primary Education. The Future of Biodiversity Preservation and Environmental Pollution. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(3), 362. Batavia, C., Bruskotter, J. K., & Nelson, M. P. (2019). Pathways from Environmental Ethics to Pro-Environmental Behaviours? Insights from Psychology. Environmental Values. Baur, J. W., Ries, P., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2019). A relationship between emotional connection to nature and attitudes about urban forest management. Urban Ecosystems, 1-11.
  10. Bayramoğlu, E., Büyükkurt, U., & Yurdakul, N. M. (2019). Peyzaj Mimarlığı Eğitiminde Proje Tasarım Süreci: Trabzon “Karagöz Meydanı” Çevre Tasarım Projeleri. Social Sciences, 14(1), 15-24.
  11. Bell, P. A., Green, T., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology. New Jersey. Berkes, F., & Kışlalıoğlu, M. (1993). Ekoloji ve çevre bilimi. İstanbul:
  12. Remzi Kitabevi.
  13. Berto, R. (2019). Our wellbeing in modern built environments is rooted in our evolutionary history