Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 6, Issue 2, Article 5 (Dec., 2005)
Murat GÖKDERE
A study on environmental knowledge level of primary students in Turkey
Previous Contents Next

Findings and Discussion

In this part of study gathered data for each question of the survey are presented with tables. Discussion parts for the data analysis are strictly under the tables.

Plants
City
Town
Village
Total
%
Hazelnut Three
80
68
128
276
17.60
Cabbage
140
150
164
454
28.80
Corn
68
84
126
278
17.70
Flowers
90
112
14
216
13.80
Threes
52
60
48
160
10.10
Romaine Lettuce
68
54
34
156
10.00
Tea Plant
10
12
10
32
2.00
Total
 
 
 
1572
 

Table 1. Responses to Question, "Which of These Plants Are Cultivated By People?"

The students named 9 kinds of plants in response to this open-ended question. Plants named most often were cabbage (28.8%), corn (17.7%), hazelnut tree (17.6%), and flowers (13.8%). Other plants were named by the students with frequencies ranging from 10.00% (trees) to 2.00% (tea plants). Students referred mostly to plants that grow in arable field, and living environment where students have had personal and direct experience. Although cabbage is not mentioned in the textbook of primary level, it is stated by students. In addition to hazelnut tree, it is the same. Effect of living environment on environmental knowledge evidence that tree and hazelnut tree concepts expressed separately by students. These plants are special for Black seen geographic area in north of Turkey. For these two cases, we can assume that children's personal experience with plants is related to what they might have been influenced by living environment. Especially most answers of village students are focus on hazelnut tree, cabbage and corn, it is concrete sign of connection between living environment and knowledge environment. One of the important data is limitation of plants species with seven plants by students of samples.

Animals
City
Town
Village
Total
%
Dog
48
86
40
194
12.36
Cat
34
52
18
104
6.60
Bird
108
76
52
236
15.00
Anchovy
64
76
60
200
12.70
Fish
80
72
68
220
14.00
Specimen
8
28
46
82
5.20
Insects
52
32
68
152
9.70
Cows
44
64
86
194
12.34
Sheep
28
44
68
140
9.00
Goat
2
6
42
50
3.10
Total
 
 
 
1572
 

Table 2. Responses to Question "Name Three Animals of Turkey"

Animals named most often in response to this open-ended question were bird (15%), fish (14%), anchovy (12.7%), dog (12.36%), cows (12, 36%), insects (9,70%), and sheep (9.00%). The animals mentioned most often were the pets and animals that people keep for domestic use. Animals that live free in nature were not mentioned (bear, hog, fox, wolf, rabbit, deer various). Other than anchovy, no fish were mentioned; for goat, cat and specimen were totally ignored. These animals mentioned in textbooks but not known to students directly were not named. Generally, then, students mainly referred to animals known to them directly (pets) and animals used for food (cow, fish, anchovy) but not referred to those used for work (donkey, horse).

 
City
Town
Village
Total
%
Oil
90
48
42
180
28.5
Wood
36
50
44
130
20.5
Radiator
14
16
10
40
6.3
Car
22
32
36
90
14.4
Vitamins
92
84
14
190
30.3
Total
 
 
 
630
 

Table 3. Responses to Question, "Which of These Are Sources of Energy?"

In this question, students were provided with a list of five choices: oil, wood, radiators, cars, and vitamins. The students responded correctly that oil (28.5%) and wood (46.9%) are sources of energy (Table 3). Important percentage of students (30.3%) selected vitamins as a source of energy. Furthermore, a significant number of students, evidently confusing the source of energy with its use, selected radiators (6.3%) and cars (14.4%). Because of the total percentage of this wrong alternative (car, radiator and vitamins) is very high. it means that students have misconception about source of energy. Especially City and Town student’s data shows that these misconceptions are maximum level in these settlement centers.

 
City
Town
Village
Total
%
Humans
108
68
16
192
21.7
Cats
42
26
10
78
8.8
Cars
70
84
80
234
26.5
Noise appliances
56
74
68
198
22.6
Trains
70
64
28
162
18.4
Bicycles
2
6
10
18
2.0
Total
 
 
 
882
 

Table 4. Responses to Question, "Which Of These Pollute The Environment?"

Students were asked to select from the following list: cars, people, cats, sound appliances, bicycles, and trains. Cars were selected by almost all the students (26.5%); other common choices were noise appliances (22.6%), humans (21.7%) and trains (18.4%). Only a few students responded that cats (8.8%) and bicycles (2%) cause pollution (Table 4). It is shown that while humans were most selected by student in city, it was least selected by student in village. On the other hand, cars were selected by students. The village students also seldom selected trains probably because they have not seen train (noise, smoke..) and which are not mentioned in their textbooks.

 
City
Town
Village
Total
%
Agricultural fields
50
28
36
114
19.5
Waterfalls
18
14
4
36
6.1
Canals
18
34
56
108
18.5
Road construction
48
42
42
112
19.1
Buildings
94
52
70
216
36.8
Total
 
 
 
586
 

Table 5. Responses to Question, "Which of These Constitute Human Alterations in the Natural Environment?"

Students were asked to select among five choices: agriculture fields, buildings, canals, road construction, and waterfalls. Buildings (36.8%), canals (18.5%), road construction (19.1%), and agriculture fields (19.5%) were selected most often. Only a very small percentage (6.1%) of the students selected the wrong choice, waterfalls (Table 4). Among those, the village students made the minimum percentage whereas the students of city made the maximum part.

 
City
Town
Village
Total
%
Workers
14
22
16
50
8.4
Hunters
152
168
140
460
76.6
Other animals
32
26
22
80
13.4
Farmers
8
2
0
10
1.6
Total
 
 
 
600
 

Table 6. Responses to Question, "Which Of These Breaks The Food (Ecological) Chain?"

Students were given four choices: hunters, farmers, other animals, and workers. Almost all (76.6%) students correctly responded that hunters break the food chain; 15.5% of the students responded that farmers break the food chain. Fewer students (13.4%) responded mistakenly that other animals break the food chain. 8.4% responded wrongly that workers (construction and industrial) break the food chain (Table 6). It is clearly that the students were ignorant about the significant impact of farmers on the food chain and the irrelevance of workers and of other animals to the breaking of the food chain. There is no difference between city, town and village data.

Copyright (C) 2005 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 6, Issue 2, Article 5 (Dec., 2005). All Rights Reserved.