KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2013 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

Teacher college students' views of controversial evironmental issues: Ambivalence and readiness to adopt a stance

Yehudith WEİNBERGER
Amos DREYFUS
Sayfa
627–643
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The implications of the findings on environmental education are discussed

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:One of the most important goals of discussing controversial issues in the classroom is to educate students to possess an inclination towards reason, open mindedness and fairness.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:However, research tends to show that teachers are not adequately trained to lead fruitful discussions about controversial issues and do not possess the necessary skills to perform such a task.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The implications of the findings on environmental education are discussed
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

One of the most important goals of discussing controversial issues in the classroom is to educate students to possess an inclination towards reason, open mindedness and fairness. However, research tends to show that teachers are not adequately trained to lead fruitful discussions about controversial issues and do not possess the necessary skills to perform such a task. This paper refers to one aspect of teaching controversial issues in environmental education, namely, the inclination of teachers towards ambivalence (agreeing to some extent with both favourable and unfavourable arguments concerning a proposition) and its potential consequences. The aim of the current study is to assess teacher college students' ambivalence concerning environmental issues, to explore their readiness to adopt a stance and when doing so to check their tendency to adopt a stance in favour of the environment. The findings showed that ambivalence was less common than non-ambivalence, although it varied across the issues. Most of the ambivalent students voted for a side. Furthermore, ambivalence did not prevent pro-environment decisions. The implications of the findings on environmental education are discussed

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

WEİNBERGER, Y., DREYFUS, A. (2022). Teacher college students' views of controversial evironmental issues: Ambivalence and readiness to adopt a stance. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 627–643. https://ajindex.com/articles/540770

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Armitage, C. J, & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421-1432.
  2. Blaga, R. W, & Cooney, T. M. (1981). Teachers need help on science related issues. Phi Delta Kappa, 62, 400. Brown, F. (2000). Characterizing effective environment education and its impact on preservice students' environmental attitudes. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(1), 33-40
  3. Chikoko, V., Gilmour, J. D., Harber, C., & Serf, J. (2011). Teaching controversial issues and teacher education in England and South Africa. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 5-19.
  4. Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Teaching controversial environmental issues: Neutrality and balance in the reality of the classroom. Educational Research, 48(2), 223-241.
  5. Dearden, R. F. (1981). Controversial issues in the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13, 37-44.
  6. De-Shalit, A. (2005). Teaching political philosophy and academic neutrality. Theory and Research in Education, 3(1), 97-120.
  7. Double, R. (1999). Morality, impartiality and what we can ask of persons. American Philosophical Quarterly, 36(2), 149-158.
  8. Dreyfus, A. & Roth, Z. (1991). 12th grade biology pupils' opinions on interventions of man in nature: Agreement, indifference and ambivalence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 81-95.
  9. Dunlop, R. (1999). Beyond dualism: Towards a dialogic negotiation of difference. Canadian Journal of Education, 24(1), 57-69.
  10. Ersoy, A. F. (2010). Social studies teacher candidates' views on the controversial issues incorporated into their courses in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 323- 334. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part ii: Nonsocial Cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698.
  11. Gardner, P. L. (1987). Measuring ambivalence to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 241-247.
  12. Harber, C., & Serf, J. (2006). Teacher Education for democratic society in England and South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 986-997.
  13. Hicks, D. (2007). Education for sustainability: How should we deal with climate change? In H. Claire, & C. Holden, (Eds.), The Challenge of Teaching Controversial Issues (pp.175- 187). Stoke-on-Trent/Sterling, VA: Trentham. Jickling, B. (2003). Environmental education and environmental advocacy: Revisited. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 20-27.
  14. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in a