Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9720-0

Developing Environmentally Responsible Behaviours

Through the Implementation of Argumentation-
and Problem-Based Learning Models

Pınar Fettahlıoğlu 1 & Mustafa Aydoğdu

2

Published online: 12 April 2018

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of using argumentation and
problem-based learning approaches on the development of environmentally responsible be-
haviours among pre-service science teachers. Experimental activities were implemented for
14 weeks for 52 class hours in an environmental education class within a science teaching
department. A mixed method was used as a research design; particularly, a special type of
Concurrent Nested Strategy was applied. The quantitative portion was based on the one-group
pre-test and post-test models, and the qualitative portion was based on the holistic multiple-
case study method. The quantitative portion of the research was conducted with 34 third-year
pre-service science teachers studying at a state university. The qualitative portion of the study
was conducted with six pre-service science teachers selected among the 34 pre-service science
teachers based on the pre-test results obtained from an environmentally responsible behaviour
scale. t tests for dependent groups were used to analyse quantitative data. Both descriptive and
content analyses of the qualitative data were performed. The results of the study showed that
the use of the argumentation and problem-based learning approaches significantly contributed
to the development of environmentally responsible behaviours among pre-service science
teachers.

Keywords Teaching environmental education . Argumentation-based learning . Problem-based

learning . Environmentally responsible behaviour

This study was prepared with datum obtained from the Scientific Research Project (SRP). (Project number: Gazi
University-SRP 04/2010-29—Turkey).

* Pınar Fettahlıoğlu
[email protected]

Mustafa Aydoğdu
[email protected]

1
Science Education Department, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
2
Science Education Department, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
988 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Introduction

The environmental literacy concept was first proposed by Roth in 1968 (Roth 1992), and has
been used in the literature in Turkey since 2008 (Erdoğan 2009). According to Roth (1992),
environmental literacy is an individual’s capacity to show their knowledge about the
environment through behaviours. In addition to this description, Dinsinger and Roth
(1998) stated that an environmentally literate person should not only have a large environ-
mental knowledge but also be able to use their behaviours, beliefs, opinions and attitudes
towards the environment to find and prevent problems. On the basis of these statements, an
environmentally literate person can be said to be able to engage in critical thought about
nature and natural events (Roth 1992). The researchers participating in the Environmental
Literacy Assessment Consortium (Hungerford, Volk, Wilke, Champeau, Marcinkowski,
Bluhmve, McKeown-Ice) identified the components of environmental literacy by considering
the definitions embedded in the term’s history (Erdoğan 2009). Based on the consortium’s
decision, the concept of environmental literacy is described on four dimensions: (1) knowl-
edge, (2) perception, (3) ability and (4) behaviour (Hsu 1997; Roth 1992). All the concepts
of these dimensions are interrelated, and the last and most important dimension is the
dimension of environmentally responsible behaviour.
The environmentally responsible behaviour dimension is generally defined as people being
aware of how to conduct themselves and how to be active in solving environmental problems
(Sia et al. 1985) or how to take precautions (Chao and Lam 2011; Huang and Yore 2005;
Hungerford and Volk 1990; Hsu and Roth 1998; Marcinkowski 1988; Sivek and Hungerford
1989/1990). Individuals with these types of characteristics not only cause less harm to the
environment, they also demonstrate positive behaviours towards protecting the environment
(Steg and Vlek 2009). For this reason, it can be said that detecting the factors affecting
environmentally responsible behaviours and considering those factors will be effective in
reducing environmental problems. When the related literature is analysed, it can be observed
that one of the factors affecting environmentally responsible behaviours is the formal educa-
tion provided to individuals (Halpenny 2010; Klineberg 1998). In this context, the main goal
of environmental education, which takes place in the Turkish education system, is to both
transfer ecological knowledge and develop the environmental attitudes of individuals and
cause these attitudes to turn into behaviours (Erten 2005). To achieve these desired skills in
education, it is very important to include essential information about environmental literacy in
lessons related to nature and to conduct the necessary activities using appropriate methods and
techniques to aid individuals in gaining these related skills.
In the past and present studies related to the environment, several models, methods and
techniques have been proposed for effective environmental education (Arı and Yılmaz, 2017;
Derman et al. 2016; Eshach 2006; Gan et al. 2002; Gigliotti 1990; Hartig et al. 2001; Kals et al.
1999; Pooley and O’Conner 2000; Saltan and Divarci 2017; Winter et al. 2010). These studies
suggest using methods that allow teachers to present many technical specialties to students,
methods that enable teachers to plan activities that develop the ecological knowledge of
students and methods that encourage students’ attitudes and skills related to the environment.
However, the methods used in the classroom are restricted specifically to the development of
the environmental literacy sub-dimension of environmentally responsible behaviour (Eshach
2006). Therefore, the studies in the related literature consider that it is necessary to support
formal environmental education through informal environmental education (Ayotte-Beaudet
et al. 2017; Bossley 2016; Eshach 2006; Gan et al. 2002; Winter et al. 2010).
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 989

Informal environmental education includes activities related to the environment that are
conducted outside of the classroom. There are two sub-dimensions of these activities. The first
sub-dimension consists of national media coverage of environmental problems, individuals
participating in related activities or sharing different types of information through social
networking forums and individuals addressing the identified problems or deficiencies. The
second sub-dimension consists of school students tackling environmental issues outside of the
classroom and attempting to solve the problems. Through this approach, students develop not
only critical thinking skills but also environmentally responsible behaviours because they are
given responsibilities for the environment (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) 2005).
When the related literature is analysed, it is observed that an emphasis is placed on the
requirement to adopt the problem-solving method as the basis for learning, particularly in
informal education practices, in order to increase the level of effectiveness and to achieve
attainment targets (Young and Mcelhone 1986). In this context, when considering the problem,
students who are attempting to solve an environmental problem feel a type of responsibility for
the environment because they are addressing a real problem. Thus, this situation aids them in
developing environmentally responsible behaviours. For this reason, it is very important that
the methods, models or techniques used in informal (outside of class) environmental education
are focused on solving real-life problems.
Examining the structures of both formal and informal class settings, promising approaches
to placing more emphasis on responsible behaviour of learners include the application of
argumentation-based learning within formal environmental education and problem-based
learning within the context of informal environmental instruction, both of which are supposed
to better meet the anticipated objectives of environmental education. To illustrate, learners
become more able to improve decision-making abilities thanks to their experiences in practices
of argumentation-based approaches in instruction (Hogan 2002). Problem-based instruction,
on the other hand, provides learners with opportunities to employ required strategies to solve
the problem presented. They also demonstrate progress in their critical and creative thinking
abilities, which promotes learners ability to construct meaning or comprehension on their own
(Boud and Feletti 1991). In addition, the development of students’ environmentally responsi-
ble behaviours can also be observed through their activities relating to an environmental
problem since they not only learn new information about the environment but also use the
knowledge in the implementation and problem-solving processes.
When the environmental literature is reviewed, it is observed that there have been various
studies conducted in the field (Arı and Yılmaz 2017; Bossley 2016; Demirkaya et al. 2003;
Kostova and Atasoy 2008; Marinopoulos and Stavridou 2002; Newton 2016; Winter et al.
2010). First, regarding implementation, the perceptions of pre-service science teachers are
revealed through the use of different types of student-centred activities such as small group and
large group work in the development process. When the conducted studies are analysed, it is
observed that the studies are restricted in terms of the implementations conducted in the
classroom. With respect to the development of pre-service science teachers’ environmentally
responsible behaviour, no study investigating the effect of implementing the argumentation-
based learning approach and problem-based learning approach has been identified. However,
three essential factors can be identified: teachers, students and teaching programmes.
Considering the effect of teachers on students and teaching programmes, the most important
factor can be shown to be the teacher. In this context, Ernst (2007) found that teachers with a
strong environmental literacy knowledge have support in their schools, environmental
990 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

sensitivity, positive environmental attitudes and are receptive to environmental education.

Therefore, to reach the goals defined in the education system, teachers are required to gain
some skills during pre-service training. When considering the fact that science is one of the
subjects providing effective environmental education, it is thought that a study examining the
effect of using argumentation practices during lesson activities and of using the problem-based
learning approach in extracurricular activities on the development of pre-service science
teachers’ environmentally responsible behaviour will contribute to the field. In light of this
argument, the research aims to study the effect of using the argumentation and problem-based
learning approaches in the development of environmentally responsible behaviours among
pre-service science teachers. Within this scope, the following questions were asked and
answered:

1. How does an environmental science class—in which the argumentation and problem-
based learning approaches are implemented—affect the environmentally responsible
behaviours (resource-protection activities for economic benefit, environmentally friendly
consumers, free-time activities related to nature, recycling efforts, responsible citizenship
and environmental activism) of pre-service science teachers?
2. What are pre-service science teachers’ post-lesson perceptions of an environmental
science class in which the argumentation and problem-based learning approaches are
implemented?

Environmental Education

When the literature on environmental education is examined some studies (Carter and Simmons
2010; Newton 2016) claim that environmental education begins with the work of Emerson
(1836), Thoreau (1854) and Perkins (1864). On the other hand, some researches argue that the
first foundations of environmental education were taken in the work of Rousseau (1762) (cited in
McCrea 2006). When these studies are examined, it appears that there are two different
movements for the emergence and development of environmental education. One of these
movements is educational movements and the other is environmental movements. Educational
movements contributed to the first emergence of environmental education; on the other hand,
environmental movements (nature study movement (initiated in 1891), outdoor education move-
ment (started during 1920s) and conservation education movement (started during 1930s)
contributed to the development of environmental education (early 1891). In this context, the first
environmental movements in environmental education were the preservation movement (1872–
1908), the conservation movement (1908–1962) and the environmental quality movement
(1962–1992), each of which are based on different philosophies (Marcinkowski, 2006; Erdoğan
2009). In the context of this mobility, Stapp (1969) made a clear explanation on the definition of
environmental education. According to Stapp (1969), environmental education aims to educate
individuals about Bbiophysical environment and related problems, how to solve these problems
and how to motivate the solution process.^ This definition of Stapp (1969) reveals four clear
points in environmental education: knowledge, skill, motivation and behavioural change. After
this definition, at the Tbilisi Conference (1977), comments on how to develop these skills in
environmental education have been introduced by including environmental values and attitudes
in the definition of environmental education. Among these interpretations is the need to examine
the complex dynamics of physical, social, biological, economic and cultural factors associated
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 991

with environmental problems for environmental education. To this end, the conference argued
that students should have an interdisciplinary approach to solving environmental issues and
should have first-hand and authentic experiences. When we look at the current environmental
education process, it is noticed that the same philosophy is continuing in the process and some
updates are made.
Today, the aim of environmental education is to ensure that all individuals grow up as
environmentally literate (Scannella and McCarthy 2014). According to Scannella and McCar-
thy (2014), environmental awareness, active participation skills in environmental knowledge,
skills, attitudes and environmental movements are included in environmental literacy. Corey
(2012) argues that the skills to be emphasised in environmental education are environmental
awareness, environmental concept knowledge, environmental attitudes and environmental
action skills. In fact, the ultimate goal of emphasising this knowledge and skills, especially
in environmental education, is to ensurethat individuals are trained to actively participate in the
solution process of environmental problems and have this knowledge. Increased awareness of
individuals and their protection of the environment, positive developments in attitudes and
values, have a significant effect on the training of individuals so they can take responsibility for
the environment (Newton 2013).
For the development of these skills aimed at environmental education, it is necessary that
the activities that the students perform in the classroom are supported with practical activities
in the form of solving a problem related to the environment outside the class (Zheng et al.
2017). In this context, in the studies related to environmental education, it is emphasised that
environmental education should be especially processed in two dimensions (Bossley 2016):
formal and informal environmental education.
In the formal environmental education, different methods are applied within the framework
of traditional class understanding in the educational stages from pre-school up to higher
education. At the end of this education, the development of environmental literacy skills of
individuals is targeted (Volk and McBeth 1998; Clayton and Myers 2009). However, only at
the end of the formal training, can development of responsible environmental behaviour be
seen at the desired level. Responsible environmental behaviour includes being active in
the environment including involvement in social interaction for improvement or development
of individuals’ environmentally responsible behaviours. In this context, the second dimension
of environmental education gains importance. Informal environment education is less struc-
tured than formal education. This education could be more characterised as free choice
learning. This means that the individual tends to use the information in this process
(Clayton and Myers 2009). So in this process, individuals have the opportunity to apply their
ideas in the context of social interaction. Therefore, in this process, they can test whether the
information they have is appropriate and have the opportunity to see where and how to use the
information (Bossley 2016).

Environmentally Responsible Behaviour

The main objective of environmental education is to support the acquisition of environment-

related awareness, sensitivity to preserve and use nature responsibly (Hungerford and Volk
1990) and to increase individual's environmental literacy (Harvey 1977). Environmental
education is planned in a way to promote individuals sensitivity to nature and to affect
positively their values and attitudes in this. Therefore, it is could be said that the ultimate
992 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

purpose of environmental education is to develop responsible behaviour for preservation of

nature.
Environmentally responsible behaviour is mainly defined as a concrete indicator of
individual’s knowledge of, attitudes towards and skills regarding environment and his/her
active participation in activities for the solution of environmental problems (Hsu 1997;
Roth 1992; Simmons 1995; Wilke 1995). According to Hsu (1997), there exist different
categories of environmentally responsible behaviour. These categories are (1) behaviour of
physical protection (eco-management): certain behaviours of people for the solution and
prevention of environmental behaviours; (2) consumer/economic action: acts of people
that they intend to help solve and prevent environmental problems using their financial
powers; (3) individual and public persuasion: individual behaviours that inform people
about what they are expected to do in solving and preventing environmental problems or
to persuade them to do so; (4) political action: to arrange some political actions in a way to
solve and prevent environmental problems; and (5) legal action: acts of people intended to
promote the implementation of environment-related regulations supported by
governments.
Considering the categories of environmentally responsible behaviour, it may be said to be a
tough process for individuals to develop responsible behaviours targeting the environment.
However, it is safe to say that it would not be as hard for individuals who have been exposed to
an environmental education (Nisbet et al. 2008). When this aimed for environmental behaviour
of individuals is not developed, human beings may display behaviours destructive to environ-
ment. Consideration of this very possibility has promoted programme developers to create new
structures with the main aim of preventing such dangers to nature (Cheng and Monroe 2010).
In this relation, investigation of meta-analysis studies (Dwyer et al. 1993; Hines et al. 1986/87;
Hornik et al. 1995; Osbaldiston 2004), proposed models (Sivek and Hungerford 1989/1990;
Hungerford and Volk 1990) and other qualitative and quantitative research, points to four
different categories of factors affecting behaviour (Barr 2007; Hsu 1997). These categories: (1)
personal factors such as sensitivity, attitude and responsibility; (2) cognitive factors namely
knowledge and skills; (3) demographic factors such as age, gender, income, educational status
and parental education level; and (4) other factors such as pressure groups such as authorities.
Therefore, consideration of these four categories when carrying out studies can help in con-
structing better understanding of environmentally responsible behaviour.

Problem-Based Learning

Based on studies of John Dewey, the problem-based learning approach originated in 1960s and
first implemented in a faculty of medicine (Norman and Schmidt 1992). Problem-based
learning has been used in various fields such as Science, Medicine, Engineering and Law in
many different countries and been defined in many different ways (Barrows and Tamblyn
1980; Albanese and Mitchell 1993; Schmidt 1993; Norman and Schmidt 1992). Among them,
Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) explained problem-based learning as an approach to understand
and find a solution to a problem. According to Barrows and Tamblyn (1980), in processing this
mentioned approach, a problem is faced, and it is beneficial for finding a solution to use
required skills to fix it, for the interpretation of data needed to fix it and for determination of
reasons for its existence. Albanese and Mitchell (1993) defined problem-based learning as a
constructivist method, a process in which learners are guided to acquire problem-solving skills
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 993

and researching abilities while handling a problem. Problem-based learning was defined by
Schmidt (1993) as a natural process based on discussions around a problem when a teacher
acts as a facilitator or guide rather than an instructor and encourages learners to construct their
own meaning about the exposed problem. In many cases, the problem exposed is recommend-
ed to be authentic; that is, it should be one they are likely to come across in their real lives. It is
important that the problem to be solved should be one in which learners can carry out
processes of research and discussion. Learners should work in groups while trying to identify
underlying reasons for the problem and come up with varying solutions for it (Karen and
Downing, 2013). Duch et al. (2001) also placed emphasis on the importance of authenticity
in selection of problems to be discussed on for possible solutions. This is anticipated to help
learners function more effectively in their real lives in that they are to be equipped with
abilities to identify the problem recognising underlying variables and to generate practical
ways to deal with it.
Therefore, in problem-based learning, the process should be initiated with a problem while
acquisition of required information and the application of skills to be used for solution
seeking should be the objective of the instruction. In consideration of qualities mentioned
above, involving a process-oriented learning model (Baysal 2017; Friedman and Deek 2003)
and a natural self-structured learning, problem-based learning holds the aim not only to solve
an identified problem but also to achieve the objectives of instruction such as problem solving,
researching, criticising and debating with regard to that exposed problem (Duch et al. 2001;
Pike et al. 2017). In this relation, Gijbels et al. (2005) gathered the key qualities of problem-
based learning into six categories.
One of those categories is the syudent centred model of learning. That is, the instructor
releases the responsibility to the learners and starts to perform the role as guide, which requires
learners to construct their own learning without being presented the pure knowledge. They
naturally start to build up skills to help them function more actively and productively in real
life (Conceicao and Taylor 2007).
The second is that learners are guided to work in small groups, which may be interpreted to
provide them with opportunities to recognise various points of view and to create a shared
meaning of these. Therefore, they become able to show empathy by understanding different
ideas and to have awareness of the possibility for various ways to solve a problem (Jonassen
and Hung 2008).
The third basic category of this approach is the change in teacher role in class. They start to
take the role as guide or facilitator, leading the learners to find out or anticipate the required
ways to reach information rather than give direct information demanded (Shepard 2005). This
encourages learners to engage in deeper processes to construct their own learning while trying
to solve more complicated problems. One promising advantage of dealing with more compli-
cated problems is to enhance the process of meaning construction as they start to function more
creatively and critically.
As the fourth quality is authentic problems. It is important that those problems should not be
the ones learners have already been prepared for or, to which they are familiar. Those problems
should be exposed in a way that learners are naturally promoted to carry out systematic research
in which they can also cooperate with each other. At the time learners are introduced to the
problems, they need to focus on possiblesolutions and what kind of data should be sought
(Delisle 1997). After all, the exposed problems should take the interest of learners and motivate
them for further engagement in the process of problem-solving. Authentic problems are related
994 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

to real-life conditions, which can require reasonable and authentic solutions (Kaptan and
Korkmaz 2001).
The fifth is that the problem exposed should direct learners to acquisition of expected
information and for active building of problem-solving abilities. In this process learners
conduct various attempts to find solutions. The ways objectives can be achieved in this model
are variable. That is why learners are likely to employ various strategies for the expected result.
Critical and creative thinking skills of learners are stimulated (Delisle 1997). Their awareness
of variable attempts in small group work is another advantage of this model.
The sixth and the last quality of this model is the acquisition of new data through self-
directed model of learning. This means the acquisition of additional knowledge and skills
while their primary goal is to make up solutions for the problem (Mathews 2011).
There are some stages for the control of this problem-based learning that were determined
by Stepien et al. (1993) and Edens (2000). They may be explained as:

a. Problem identification and introduction: instructors propose new ways for the acquisition
of expected data. Learners first have familiarity to the problem which should be carefully
designed in a way to reflect everyday conditions. Learners create their own scenario in
which they cooperate for shared solutions. They also relate the new situation to their prior
knowledge.
b. Research process: learners are guided to collect more data to be able to solve the exposed
problem. After interpreting it, they make a plan about how to implement it. They share the
responsibilities as roles to be performed in the process of research. The instructor and the
learners’ debate what sort of resources are needed, and how they can have an access to
them.
c. Synthesising and application: this stage is the one where the problem is solved. Learners
get prepared to present what results they come up with. They perform as a group during
presentations, and others state their encouraging critiques on presented work.

Argumentation-Based Learning

There is no one accepted definition of argumentation, but some examples from the literature
include:

& Argumentation is the experimental and theoretical consideration of differing points of

views with data gathered from various sources (Harlow and Otero 2004; Jimenez-
Aleixandre and Pereiro-Munhoz 2002; Kuhn and Udell 2003).
& Argumentation is a logical, dynamic, cognitive and intellectual process in which argu-
mentations placing emphasis on causes-effects and pros-cons of different points of views
(Driver et al. 2000; Mason and Scirica 2006; Nussabaum and Bendixen 2003; Walton
2006).
& It is a social practice involving the processes in which learners are encouraged as
individuals to bring meaning to information through the acts of thinking and writing or
stimulated as group members to consider and criticise one another’s opinions, debate on
one another’s ideas and revise previously proposed claims (Berland and Reiser 2011;
Zohar and Nemet 2002).
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 995

& It is finding out ways to provide reasonable solutions to problems and disputes, (Jiménez-
Aleixandre et al. 2000; Siegel 1995).
& It is a social and intellectual activity aiming at having the confirmation of audience; in
other words, persuading them with the aid of data, reasons and evidence so as to prove or
disprove an idea (Billig 1987; Toulmin 1958; Van Eemeren et al. 1996).

To sum up, argumentation may be defined as a process in which individuals alone or within a
group propose their claims for the solution of a problem and support those claims with reliable and
valid data they hold. In other words, argumentation is a process in which individuals and groups
evaluate their alternative claims with a purpose to solve an existing problem or understand a situation
considering various contexts and events from different perspectives and cognitive outputs obtained
from that evaluation (Aldağ 2005). Therefore, what is fundamental for individuals or groups in
argumentation is to consider and evaluate alternative perspectives and solutions so as to understand
the current matter, solve it and make a reasonable decision in relation to it. In contrast with this
definition, argumentation is not that individuals and groups hold different positions. Within the
process of argumentation, various points of view that individuals face may cause a cognitive
inconsistency in themselves. This inconsistency provides a cause for learners to give more thought
to processes. That quality of argumentation makes it an efficient method for construction of meaning
(Aldağ 2006).
Argumentation has started to be implemented in education with Toulmin’s model of argumen-
tation. The systematic consideration of argumentation dates back to Aristotle, while its scientific
consideration and components of it were determined with aid of activities available in book of
Toulmin (1958), BThe Uses of Argument.^ This book, published by Toulmin, also holds the quality
to be the first book used in discipline of informal reasoning. Nonetheless, the use of this book in
education has been limited due to its institutional structure. Toulmin tried to make this limitation of
the book disappear and let it be used more effectively in education through the adaptation of the
argumentation model in his next book, An Introduction to Reasoning written 26 years after his first
book (Toulmin et al. 1984). Since 1990s, when instructors have started to apply social-cultural
approach in their practices, this book by Toulmin have started to support create more interest in
method of argumentation in education (Aldağ 2006; Fettahlıoğlu 2014).
Within the model of argumentation, Toulmin describes the kinds of debates as Bpractical^ or
Bstrong^ argumentation. These kinds of argumentation are different from analytical ones. Within
analytical argumentations, individuals propose their ideas basing them on facts. However, in
argumentations available in Toulmin’s model, individuals base their clams on contexts or situations
in which arguments are constructed (Foss et al. 2001). For instance, claims about religion may be
valid in that field, while it may not be applicable to the field of Science (Puvirajah 2007). Toulmin’s
model has been observed to facilitate the interpretation and evaluation of arguments (van Eemeren
et al. 1996). The argumentation model proposed by Toulmin is generally preferred for use in
education. This model is displayed in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 1, based on Toulmin’s argumentation model, the basic structure of
argument as represented in sentences is thus: Bbecause (data) ... since (warrant) ... on account
of (backing) ... therefore (conclusion).^ The warrants in Toulmin’s model explain the direction
of the data in relation to the argument through supporting statements. On the other hand,
backings represent additional explanations or hypotheses that reveal the accuracy of the
warrants (Jimenez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Munoz 2002). Moreover, Toulmin also used qual-
ifier and rebuttal terms for more complex arguments (Driver et al. 2000; Simon et al. 2006). In
996 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Qualifier

Data Claim

Warrant
Rebuttal

Backing

Fig. 1 Toulmin’s argument pattern (1958)

accordance with this framework, explanations of all of the components in Toulmin’s argu-
mentation model are presented below (Driver et al. 2000; Simon et al. 2006; Oh 2014):

& Claims are the opinions expressed on the subject matter.

& Data are the various information resources used to support the opinions in the arguments.
& Warrants are the statements, rules or principles that provide the connection between the
data and arguments.
& Backings are corroborating specific warrants that are uncertain based on the hypotheses.
& Qualifiers are the restricted cases in which the arguments are considered to be correct.
& Rebuttals are the cases in which the arguments are not correct, and the data, reasons,
support or qualifiers are in conflict.

In classrooms in which Toulmin’s argumentation model is used, students are able to express
their opinions clearly by using their pre-knowledge and they attempt to justify their thoughts.
Other students also express opposing views clearly and present alternative opinions (Driver
et al. 1994; Oh 2014). In this concept, the argumentation of socio-scientific ideas regarding, for
example, how to dispose of domestic waste, aids students in determining appropriate proofs,
developing appropriate argumentations and improving personal skills, as well as in reaching
logical results regarding issues that will directly affect their own lives (Newton et al. 1999). In
this regard, students can develop their decision-making skills on a socio-scientific issue
through the argumentation-based learning approach (Hogan 2002; Kutluca and Aydin 2016).

Research Method

In this study, mixed methods were used as a research design; in particular, a special type of
concurrent nested strategy was applied. The qualitative and quantitative data were collected at
the same time before and after the process that was implemented with the study group in the
embedded pattern (embedded theory) (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2011). This method is
preferred primarily when researchers aim to add a complementary qualitative component to
the process of interpreting an experimental study (Bergman 2008). In other words, in this
method, the quantitative data are used to investigate whether the implementation has any effect
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 997

on the research and the qualitative data are used to look for an answer to the question regarding
the effect of this implementation. That is, in this research design, quantitative data are collected
before and after experimental method applied on the working group. On the other hand,
qualitative data are collected before, during and after the applied experimental method. Here,
qualitative data are used to search for the answer to the question about the effect of this
application (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2011). In this study, the quantitative portion was based
on the one-group pre-test and post-test models, and the qualitative portion was based on the
holistic multiple-case study method.

Experimental Design

In the quantitative part of this study, a single-group pre-test-post-test experimental design

was used based on an argumentation and problem-based learning model. According to
this design, participants are measured before and after the experimental process to reveal
cause-and-effect relationships between variables related to the dependent variable. Ex-
perimental method is the best method to explain causal relationships (Muijs 2004). Also,
this method is the best research path that explains the cause-effect relationships among
variables (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003) According to this design, the influence of the
dependent variable on the group is compared with the preliminary and final measure-
ments. The schematic representation of the single group pre-test-post-test experimental
pattern is shown in Fig. 2:
The purpose of using the single-group pre-test-post-test experimental design in this
research is to show that qualitative method has been used extensively in this research.
The causes and reasons for the developments that have emerged at the end of the training
applications were investigated in the research with the help of qualitative data. The
quantitative method was used only to statistically test the effect of the training applica-
tions applied in the research. In other words, predominantly, qualitative data in the study
is the front plan. Therefore, control group was not used in the study.

Case Study

In this study, the development of pre-service science teachers’ responsible environmental

behaviour was examined by case study, which is one of the patterns of qualitative
research methodology. Case studies focus mainly on facts that represent individual
groups or individuals. In case studies, these facts are examined in the context of time
and space in their natural environment (Hancock and Algozzine 2006). Case studies are
the most common way of qualitative interrogation seeking answers to how and why (Yin
2003; Stake 2005). In this context, Yin (2003) divided the case studies into four main
sections. These are single-case (holistic) design, single-case (embedded) design,

Fig. 2 The schematic representation of the single group pre-test and post-test experimental patterns
998 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

multiple-case (holistic) designs and multiple-case (embedded) designs. As you can see in
the classification of Yin, multiple-case designs can also be implemented in an integrated
fashion. There is more than one case in this design that can be perceived as a whole on
its own. Each case is handled holistically within itself and then compared with each other
(Yin 2003). This research has been organised in a holistic multiple-case design. Respon-
sible environmental behavioural developments of six pre-service science teachers were
examined separately by observations, interviews and documents in the units in environ-
mental science course. Here, each teacher candidate is considered an analysis unit. The
responsible environmental behavioural development of each pre-service science teachers
was considered holistically and compared with other pre-service science teachers (anal-
ysis units) after being assessed in-house.

Participants

The quantitative portion of this study was conducted with 34 pre-servive science teachers
teaching third grade studying at a State University in the Faculty of Education Science
Education Department in the spring semester of 2011–2012 in Turkey. In this period, the
third grades at the relevant state university were divided into four separate classes.
Among these classes, the researchers identified the class with the smallest number of
students as the research group. Because of the fact that the number of students in the
class was too high, the applications were disrupted during the pilot application of the
study. (The fact that the number of students in class activities was high resulted in
difficulties in classroom management. Also, the fact that the number of groups was high
during the outdoor education-related activities created difficulties in terms of manage-
ment). In the context of this pre-determined outcome, the group with the lowest class
presence was identified as the research group by the researchers. The characteristics of
the pre-service science teachers are presented in Table 1.
When examined in Table 1, it is seen that 29 of the pre-service science teachers were
female and 5 male. It is seen that the education level of the pre-service science teachers’
mothers is mainly at the level of primary school graduates and the level of education of
their fathers is at the level of high school and university. Pre-service science teachers are
moderately interested in environmental issues. It is seen that the pre-service science
teachers do not go to natural areas very often. On the other hand, they are very interested
in natural areas.
When the literature is examined, it can be seen that environmentally responsible
behaviours are affected by many variables. Environmentally responsible behaviours
was observed to be significantly correlated with age (Barr 2007; Poortinga et al. 2004;
Shin et al. 2005), gender (Barr 2007; Chu et al. 2006; Oweini and Houri 2006) and
parent education level (Chu et al. 2006; Goldman et al. 2006). Also, environmentally
responsible behaviours were observed to be significantly correlated with the social
variables of family interactions, participation in outside organisations and personal
connections to the natural world (Nitowski 2014). Therefore, we want to give the
prospective teachers information about these variables in order to control for these exter-
nal factors. The information in Table 1 is only given to present pre-service science
teachers’ demographic characteristics. This information has not been used for any other
purposes in the study.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 999

Table 1 The characteristics of the pre-service science teachers

Pre-service science teachers’ characteristics f %

Sex Female 29 85.3

Male 5 14.7
Mother’s profession Housewife 24 70.6
Worker 2 5.9
Officer 3 8.8
Self-employed 1 2.9
Retired 3 8.8
Other 1 2.9
Mother’s education Illiterate 1 2.9
Primary school 18 52.9
Middle school 5 14.7
High school 3 8.8
University 6 17.6
College 1 2.9
Father’s profession Worker 4 11.8
Officer 11 32.4
Farmer 1 2.9
Self-employed 8 23.5
Retired 10 29.4
Father’s education Primary school 6 17.6
Middle school 5 14.7
High school 10 29.4
University 11 32.4
College 1 2.9
Graduate 1 2.9
How often do you wonder about information related to I do not ever wonder 1 2.9
the environment and nature I wonder very little 1 2.9
I wonder a moderate amount 18 52.9
I wonder too much 14 41.2
In the past year, how often did you go to natural areas I have never been 1 2.9
I rarely went 10 29.4
I sometimes went 16 47.1
I went very often 7 20.6

On the other hand, in the qualitative part of the study, six focus pre-service science teachers
were selected using the maximum diversity sampling method. In the maximum diversity
sample, the process can be explained as follows: the researcher should determine the sources
of diversity as detailed as possible from the events associated with the selected research
problem. In the next stage, the researcher must decide which of these sources of diversity
should be included in the sample and act in such a way as to reflect these diversities into the
sample. According to these explanations, researchers have identified the features that most
influence the behavioural variable in order to identify participants. So in determining the
participants, the researchers took care to ensure diversity according to the characteristics
previously identified. In this context, the features considered are shown in Table 2. Also, the
researchers considered the participants’ pre-test scores from the environmental responsible
behaviour scale when determining the participants for qualitative data in addition to these
features. Firstly, the scores of the pre-service science teachers obtained were grouped as low-
middle-high scores. For this process, researchers used their total scores and standard deviation
values obtained from the scale.
1000 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Table 2 Focus pre-service science teachers’ characteristics

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Behaviour level Medium Medium low low Medium Medium

Mother’s education level Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary
school school school school school school
Mother’s profession Housewife Housewife Housewife Worker Housewife Housewife
Father’s educational level Primary Primary Middle Primary Middle High
school school school school school school
Father’s profession Retired Business Worker Worker Worker Officer
worker owner
Wonder about Medium Medium Medium Very good Medium Medium
environmental issues
Go to natural areas for For a ride To get fresh To explore To rest and To explore For a picnic
leisure air to relax

The following processes considered when grouping scores

Low level; lowest score < X ≤ arithmetic mean − standard deviation;

Middle level; arithmetic mean − standard deviation < X ≤ arithmetic mean + standard
deviation
High level; arithmetic mean + standard deviation < X ≤ highest score

According to these calculations, the pre-service science teachers were divided into thirds
(33% each). Then pre-service science teachers in each group were examined. Two participants
were selected to provide the heterogeneity from each group according to the set diversity
criteria. All the qualitative data are gathered from these six pre-service science teachers. The
real names of the pre-service science teachers were not used in the study, instead, they were
coded as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6. Detailed information about the focus students (pre-service
science teachers) is presented in Table 2.

Data Collection Tools

A scale assessing responsible behaviour towards the environment, developed by Yavetz et al.
(2009) and translated into Turkish by Timur (2011), was used as the quantitative data
collection tool. Semi-structured interviews were used as the qualitative data collection tool.
Environmentally responsible behaviour scale consists of 20 questions that form 6 sub-
dimensions. These sub-dimensions were defined by Timur (2011) as the following: resource
conservation activities for people’s economic benefit, environmentally conscious consumers
and leisure activities related to nature, recycling efforts, responsible citizenship and environ-
mental activism. Environmentally responsible behaviour scale uses a 5-point Likert scale for
the responses: 1, never; 2, rarely; 3, sometimes; 4, usually; and 5, always. With respect to the
reliability of the scale, the Cronbach’s alpha is .85. When the reliability value of the scale was
recalculated for this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was found to be .88.
In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the focus pre-service science
teachers at the practise stage to understand the type of benefits the lesson provided in relation to
the behaviours of the pre-service science teachers. The interviews conducted at the end of the
implementations were also conducted with the focus pre-service science teachers with the purpose
of revealing the pre-service science teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation. The
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1001

interviews that were conducted to obtain information about the process were completed at the end
of each class and with each individual participant. When preparing the questions for the semi-
structured interviews, the following steps were taken (Cresswell and Plano-Clark 2011):

1. Before the interview questions were formed, the general and special purpose of the
research was listed in draft form.
2. The questions were prepared in such a way that they would not cause the pre-service
science teachers to be bored or ashamed and so that the questions would be easy to answer
using clear explanations.
3. The questions were evaluated by considering the perspectives of experts in the field.
4. A pilot study was conducted of the developed questions. Ten pre-service science teachers
teaching third grade were interviewed for the pilot study. The pilot interviews were
conducted during the pilot implementation stage of the study. The results of the imple-
mentation were satisfactory and reviewed by an expert before the interview questions
were refined into the final form.

Analysis of the Data

The quantitative data from the study were analysed using the SPSS 20.00 software programme
and by using t tests for dependent groups. Also, Shapiro-Wilk test and descriptive statistics were
used in order to understand whether the scores obtained from the behavioural scale of the
prospective teachers are appropriate for normal distribution. The quantitative data collected during
the implementation stage were analysed using descriptive analyses, and the semi-structured
interviews at the end of the implementation stage were analysed using a categorical content
analysis technique via the Nvivo-9 programme. The collected data were evaluated according to the
research questions. The steps followed in the analysis of qualitative data are described in Table 3.

The Intervention Plan of Problem-Based Learning and Argumentation Models

in Environmental Science Course

The research timeline spanned 14 weeks.

In the first week, pre-meetings were conducted with the pre-service science teachers, and
the pre-service science teachers were informed about the topic of the study that would be
conducted. An online group was formed to practice online argumentation.

Table 3 Overall presentation of the analysis phase of qualitative data

• The answers given by the pre-service science teachers in the interviews were recorded in the Nvivo programme
by being transferred to the computer environment.
• Sub-scales of behaviour scale were analysed separately by 2 researchers weekly.
• 2 researchers’ analyses were compared with determine the reliability of analyses. In this process, Bconsensus^
and Bdissidence^ were identified. The following formula was used by Miles and Huberman (1994) for the
reliability of the study. p = .85 was considered and the study was considered reliable.
• Formula: p (reability) = (Na (consensus) / Na (consensus) + Nd (dissidence)) × 100.
• The data on the sub-scales of the behaviour scale were recorded in tabular form according to weekly
classification.
• Findings related to the problem of researching the sub-scales of the scale were considered by reference to the
answers of the participants.
1002 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

In the second week, pre-tests were conducted. The first question was sent to the online
group. In addition, the focus pre-service science teachers with whom the interviews would be
conducted were identified.
In the third week, the classroom and out-of-classroom implementation stage was initiated
for the study.
In the classroom activities, Toulmin’s argumentation model and the method of learning
through groups were used. In addition, open-ended questions were asked of the online group
pre-service science teachers one week earlier to help them to prepare for the classroom and to
stimulate their sense of wonder. The pre-service science teachers were asked to develop an
argument in the framework of these questions. The researcher joined the group to prevent pre-
service science teachers from discussions going off- topic, but she never gave the answer to the
questions. Through this approach, any mistakes in reasoning were identified, and the pre-service
science teachers were encouraged to acquire the habit of becoming well prepared before their
classes. Firstly, small groups were formed at the beginning of the lesson. The group-forming
techniques were determined based on the issue of the week. After forming the groups, a video
about the topic of the week was played as an attention-attracting activity. The pre-service science
teachers were asked to guess the topic of the week using clues obtained from the video and
group-forming techniques. After deciding on the topic, any elements that were not well
understood were displayed on the board and reflected on during the discussion and the activities
were initiated. The activities were first performed in small group discussions. Subsequently, a
large group discussion was initiated and the pre-service science teachers tried to identify the
correct answers. At the end of the lesson, the unclear items that were noted during the online
discussion were defined and the lesson concluded after the student who was responsible for the
lesson had summarised the lesson. The topics of the lesson for each week were determined based
on the Council of Higher Education’s recommended content. The classroom activities continued
for 11 weeks. General information about the classroom activities is provided in Table 4.
The problem-based learning approach was used in the outdoor education activities. In this
approach, the classroom was divided into four groups consisting of eight to nine pre-service
science teachers. In addition, joint hours and classrooms were identified in which discussions
could occur about the outdoor education activities. In the first implementation week, the
researcher asked each group to identify a problem related to their own environment for the
next meeting. The next week (the fourth week), the problem from each group was shared in the
group meetings. In the fifth week, the pre-service science teachers were asked to identify
solutions for these problems through human activities. In the fourth implementation week
(sixth week), the pre-service science teachers decided how to present these activities to the
faculty. To encourage joint decisions, the decision was made to arrange a panel and choose the
pre-service science teachers who would explain the planned activities on this panel. Accord-
ingly, a panel was arranged for the fifth week. The pre-service science teachers who were
asked to participate in the panel each spoke for 20 min and gave presentations explaining the
activities they had identified and the reasons they wanted to engage in those activities. The pre-
service science teachers reached their target of 450 audience members at the panel. The sixth
week constituted a break because it was the week of mid-terms. In the seventh week, an initial
tree-planting activity was held. In the eighth and ninth weeks, the data collection was
conducted and the results were presented to the faculty. In the tenth week, the winners of
the group were determined. In the eleventh week, the winners were awarded their prizes and an
exhibition was held with the 30 photographs that received an award in the photography
competition. General information about the outdoor education activities is provided in Table 5.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1003

Table 4 General information about the classroom activities (argumentation-based learning activities)

Weeks Implemented activities Duration of

practice (min)

14 January 2012 • Meeting friends 80

• Introducing the observer and the reporter
• Informing students about the activities based on
environmental science. Distributing to students the
instructions regarding teaching the lesson.
• A sample practise of argumentation
• Forming an online group
• Sample video recording for students’ warm-up.
21 February 2012 • Implementing the pre-tests 100
• Sending the question for the first week to the online group
• Sample video recording for students’ warm-up.
28 February 2012: ecology and • The question of the first week: Bare environment and 135
environment concepts and the ecosystem used with the same meaning? Are there any
relationship between them. cases separating these concepts from each other?^
• Formation of the groups: forming groups using rotation
numbers.
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: students’ deducing incorrect and
correct statements related to the concepts of ecology and
environment using a table discussion strategy in small
groups.
• Small group argument technique: delegates
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
6 March 2012: ecological • The question of the week: BCarnivorous plants grown in 135
relationships and ecologic Borneo are plants that derive some or most of their
communities nutrients (but not energy) from trapping and consuming
animals or protozoans, typically insects and other
arthropods. Once an insect touches the flower, the sticky
surface of the plant prevents the insect from escaping. At
the bottom of the flower, the enzyme emerges and helps
the plant to digest the insect; thus, the plant obtains
nutrients. On the other hand, the red spider lives on this
plant during its life. It can easily provide the nutrients that
are too big for the flower to catch. Since it leaves the
effluent of the digested nutrients, the carnivorous plant
provides ready food thanks to that relation. Red spiders as
well as other animals live in that flower and benefit from
its nutrients. Which interspecies or intraspecies
relationships exist in this example?^
• Formation of the groups: the puzzle method was used.
Various photos of the environment were chosen. These
photos were divided into 3 parts and distributed to the
students. 3 students who could complete the photo with
the parts they had become a group.
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: students’ deductions of both incorrect
and correct statements about ecology and environmental
concepts using the expression table discussion strategy in
small groups.
• Small group discussion method: delegates
1004 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Table 4 (continued)

Weeks Implemented activities Duration of

practice (min)

• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of

the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
12 March 2012: factors affecting • Question of the week: at the Second World Climate 135
all living creatures Conference held in Geneva in 1990, scientists clearly
revealed that a change in the climate of the world has
begun. Therefore, the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (FCCC) was proposed to save natural resources
and particularly the atmosphere. This convention was
submitted for signature at the 1992 UN Environment and
Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where
165 countries were represented. The convention has been
signed by many countries to date. Climate change is 1 of
the items frequently occupying the news agenda. But why
is climate change so important?
• Formation of the group: each student randomly draws a
paper from a bundle of papers on which various factors are
written; groups are formed by the students who drew the
same factor.
• Attracting attention: video show on the topic
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: using the notion of Btheories are
competing,^ the students discussed why environmental
problems are a threat for all living creatures. The students
were given 3 different theories and asked to find which
one is true, which one is not, and which one is insufficient,
and they were asked to defend their opinions with
evidence.
• Small group discussion technique: listening trinity
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
20 March 2012: low energy • Question of the week: is energy reversible or cyclic or both 135
or none of them?
• Formation of the groups: stop game: concepts related to the
environment were reflected on the board with a projector.
Then, the students were asked to make a circle in the
middle of the classroom. The lecturer threw the ball to 1 of
the students and asked him to choose 1 of the concepts
written on the board and give an answer. Then, the student
was asked to throw the ball to another student.
• The concepts written on the board were classified on the
instructor’s confidential document. The names of the
students who answered the questions were written on the
paper, and the formation of the groups was completed
accordingly.
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson begin by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: the students were asked to engage in
discussions to determine whether energy is alternating or
cyclical using the competing theories and ideas and
evidence strategies. The students were also given different
data and asked to produce evidence of the ideas they
support.
• Small group discussion technique: 4 small groups
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1005

Table 4 (continued)

Weeks Implemented activities Duration of

practice (min)

• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of

the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
29 March 2012 • Panel 200
4 April 2012: matter recycling • Question of the week: which matter cycle is more important 135
for you and why?
• Formation of the groups: formation of the groups using the
Bingo game. On the students’ papers, there were 6
symbols, and each symbol represented a group. People
with the same symbol joined the same group.
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: the lesson was taught using the jigsaw
method.
• Teaching different matter cycles in 6 different groups using
the thematic learning approach (preparing posters, creating
slogans).
• Forming an expert group in the second stage of the lesson
and holding a subset of the small group discussion on 1
question.
• Discussion Strategies used in the lesson: prediction,
observation, explanation and competing theories.
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
9 April 2012 • Exam week
17 April 2012: air pollution • Formation of the groups: envelopes with concepts about air 135
and bio-variety pollution were distributed randomly to the students. The
people who received the same concept formed a group.
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: small group discussion on air pollution
using the prediction-observation-explanation strategy.
• Discussion technique: delegates
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
24 April 2012: water pollution • Formation of the groups: envelopes with concepts about 135
water pollution were distributed randomly to the students.
The people who received the same concept formed a
group
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: small group discussion with the help of
the competing theories and ideas and evidence strategies.
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
1 May 2012: noise, soil, • Formation of the groups: students formed groups with their 135
radioactive pollution, friends; they could determine the groups themselves.
light pollution • Attracting attention: video shown on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: the lesson was taught using the jigsaw
method.
1006 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Table 4 (continued)

Weeks Implemented activities Duration of

practice (min)

• Teaching different matter cycles in 8 different groups using

the thematic learning approach (preparing posters, creating
slogans).
• Forming an expert group in the second stage of the lesson
and holding a subset of the small group discussion on 1
question.
• Discussion strategies used during the lesson: predictions,
observations, explanations and competing theories.
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
7 May 2012: the definition • Question of the week: which meaning of Bsustainable 135
and content of sustainable development^ is used here? What do you understand from
development this notion?
• Formation of the groups: formation of 3 orderly groups by
lining up the children in ascending order of age based on
their birthdays in a silent manner with the help of gestures.
• Attracting attention: video presentation on the topic.
• Starting the lesson: the lesson began by emphasising the
points that had not been understood in the online group.
• Teaching the lesson: the students discussed the meaning of
the sustainable development issue in small groups based
on the argument structuring strategy
• Discussion method: …
• Evaluation: finalisation of the lesson under the guidance of
the lecturer using the large group discussion method.
15 May 2012 • Presentation of the awards to the winners of the 80
photography exhibition
22 May 2012 • Conducting the final interviews 80
29 May 2012 • Implementation of the post-tests 100

Findings

Findings Related to the Quantitative Data

The first sub-problem of the research is BHow does an environmental science class—in which
the argumentation and problem-based learning approaches are implemented—affect the envi-
ronmentally responsible behaviours (resource-protection activities for economic benefit, envi-
ronmentally friendly consumers, free-time activities related to nature, recycling efforts,
responsible citizenship, and environmental activism)of pre-service science teachers?^. For
the solution of this sub-problem, the environmental behaviour scale was applied to the pre-
service science teachers before and after the application to see their behaviour development.
The Shapiro-Wilk test was first performed to see if the scores of pre-service science teachers
were normally distributed. The results are presented in Table 6.
According to Shapiro-Wilk test results in Table 6, it is seen that the scores obtained from
pre-test have normal distribution (p pre-test = 0.910 < .05). However, it is seen that the scores
from the post-test do not point to the normal distribution (p test = 0.007 < .05). For this reason,
descriptive values of these values were calculated as the second way to test the normal
distribution, and the results are given in Table 7.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1007

Table 5 General information about the outdoor activities (problem-based learning activities)

Weeks Implemented activities

28th of February, 2012 Formation of the group

6th of March, 2012 • Defining the problem
• Overuse of batteries in the labs and throwing those batteries into the dustbin
• Overuse of paper
• Lack of woodlands in Ankara and the destruction of the existing woodlands
• Not being able to see the environment and not being able to recognise what is
happening in the places where people live.
12th of March, 2012 Looking for a suitable solution for the problem
1st group: the activity of collecting batteries
We want to minimise environmental destruction. Firstly, we have to be
conscious as pre-service teachers so that we can pass down this sensitivity to
new generations. In this framework, we arranged for the collection of waste
batteries. Our aim was to show people that waste batteries should be collected
separately from other wastes. Given the harm of waste batteries that include
mercury, cadmium, lead and other heavy metals, we want to communicate
the lack of the municipal activities and what we are required to do to avoid
these dangerous metals. In fact, we want to create awareness of the polluted
earth. We would be really happy if we could reach all people.
2nd Group: Collecting Paper Activity
When we just look at the environment, we notice that air pollution has increased
and natural sources have thus been reduced. As pre-service teachers, we
could not tolerate this situation. Therefore, we want to arrange this panel to
announce this problem to everyone and create awareness in their minds. We
thought that we already use a lot of paper in our daily lives. Everyone uses
paper in every stage of their lives. To create this paper, trees are cut down and
forests are destroyed. And that becomes the most threatening harm to the
environment since not only trees but also many natural sources are destroyed.
In order to reduce this harm, we want to pay attention to paper recycling, and
we expect the support of all pre-service teachers in reaching our goal.
3rd group: the activity of planting trees
We noticed that the woodlands in Ankara are decreasing day by day, and we also
searched and found some evidence that shows the negative impacts of a lack
of trees. We supported our evidence with graphics obtained from the Ministry
of Forestry. We noticed that planting trees is important not only for
air-pollution but also for the habitats of other living creatures. A friend of
ours, X, told us that the necessary equipment and trees are supplied by the
Ministry. The duties were shared to prepare the presentation. Y was chosen as
our speaker. We supported our presentation with graphics, and we added
effective words. Additional improvements were made by our lecturer.
4th group: the competition for photographs and slogans
We decided to arrange this photography and slogan competition in order to
present environmental events through photos considering that the more
awareness we have, the more positive attitudes we will gain. This awareness
is gained only by observing the environment. In fact, our purpose in the
project was to show that while we believe in observations and speeches, we
mainly believe in actions. It is not enough to give the feeling of
responsibility; we should also affect the behaviours of people positively.
Therefore, we believe that this project will be helpful for everyone in
improving our awareness and increasing our actions. In this competition, we
wanted the competitors to take photos showing their sensitivity to the
environment using slogans. It was exciting to find out whether people are
conscious of the environment and how people can take photos of it.
Observing this and taking precautions based on the
20th of March, 2012: Applying the plan
flow of energy • Arranging the panel
• Preparing slides
1008 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Table 5 (continued)

Weeks Implemented activities

• Making posters
• Making banners
29th of March, 2012 • Panel
4th of April, 2012 • Meeting of the students for the tree-planting activity
Matter Cycle • Registration on Facebook
• General announcements and obtaining permission from the deanery for stands
9th of April, 2012 • Exam week
17th of April, 2012: • Setting up the first stands
air pollution and Paper-collecting activity
bio-variety A total of 1350 kg of paper was collected. 60 trees were saved given that 60 kg
of paper saves 1 tree.
24th of April, 2012: Setting up the second stands
water pollution Battery-collecting activity
A total of 14,000 batteries were collected.
2nd of May, 2012: noise, Setting up the third stands
soil, radioactive pollution,
light pollution
7th of May, 2012: description Finalisation of the activities
and content of sustainable
development
15th of May, 2012 • Presenting the prizes to the winners of the photography exhibition
Twelfth week (14th week of • Interviews and post-tests were conducted.
the implementation stage)

According to Table 7, it was determined that pre-service science teachers lowest score
was 2.45 and the highest score 4.95. In this case, the array width (range) is 2.50. This value
covers enough of the expected width. On the other hand, it was seen that the mean of their
pre-test scores was 3.6 and 3.5 of mod, 3.7 of mean and standard deviation of .56. When
the post-test scores of the behaviour scale were examined, it was seen that the mean scores
were 4.3 and 4.6 of mod, 4.5 of median and standard deviation of .53. The results obtained
are close to each other, indicating that normal distribution of data is appropriate. As a
result, it can be said that the data obtained from the behaviour scale can be analysed with
parametric tests.
To understand whether there is a significant difference between the pre-service science
teachers’ scores on the behaviour scale before and after the implementation, a paired sample t
test was used. The results are displayed in Table 8.
According to Table 8, the pre-test scores for the overall responsible behaviour scale
and its sub-dimensions were lower than post-test scores. In order to understand whether

Table 6 Information on Shapiro-Wilk test results of responsible behaviour scores for pre-service science
teachers before and after application

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistics df p

Behavioural scale pre-test results 0.98 34 0.91

Behavioural scale post-test results 0.90 34 0.00*

*p < .0.05
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1009

Table 7 Descriptive values of pre-service science teachers’ scores from environmental responsible behaviour
scale

Behavioural scale pre-test results Behavioural scale post-test results

N 34 34
X 3.64 4.31
Median 3.72 4.52
Mod 3.50 4.65
SD 0.56 0.53
variance 0.31 0.29
range 2.50 2.10
Minimum 2.45 2.85
Maximum 4.95 4.95

the differences between the scores are meaningful, a t test for dependent groups was
performed. No significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores was found
with respect to benefit for the sub-dimensions of resource conservation activities for
people’s economic benefit or environmentally friendly consumers. On the other hand, a
significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores was found with overall
scale, sub-dimensions of leisure activities related to nature, recycling efforts, responsible
citizenship and environmental activism in favour of post-tests scores (tgeneral(33) = 7.95,
p < .001; tthree(33) = 4.97, p < .001; tfour(33) = 6.85, p < .001; tfive(33) = 47.29, tsix(33) = 9.92,
p < .001).

Table 8 Results of t tests for dependent groups for the pre-test and post-test average scores and the overall and
sub-dimension scores for the responsible behaviour towards the environment scale

Number SD df t value p value

X

Resource conservation activities for people’s economic benefit (1)

Pre-test 3.64 34 0.56 33 2.72 0.10
Post-test 4.31 34 0.53
Environmentally conscious consumers (2)
Pre-test 4.71 34 0.33 33 1.87 0.69
Post-test 4.89 34 0.21
Leisure activities related to nature (3)
Pre-test 4.39 34 0.54 33 4.97 0.00*
Post-test 4.61 34 0.50
Recycling efforts (4)
Pre-test 3.88 34 0.70 33 6.85 0.00*
Post-test 4.41 34 0.59
Responsible citizenship (5)
Pre-test 3.55 34 0.93 33 7.29 0.00*
Post-test 4.47 34 0.74
Environmental activism (6)
Pre-test 2.72 34 0.69 33 9.92 0.00*
Post-test 4.58 34 1.13
Overall scale (7)
Pre-test 2.86 34 0.99 33 7.95 0.00*
Post-test 4.16 34 0.75

*p < .0.00
1010 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Findings Related to the Qualitative Data

Data Obtained Regarding the Development of Environmentally Responsible

Behaviour

In this stage, the results obtained from the quantitative data were compared with the qualitative
data, which consisted of the pre-service science teachers’ (six focus pre-service science
teachers) diaries, the researcher’s diary and semi-structured interviews and the pre-service
science teachers’(six focus pre-service science teachers) hand-made products, to determine
whether the two types of data support each other. The qualitative data were analysed according
to the themes that were identified by considering the sub-dimensions of the responsible
behaviour towards the environment scale. The results are displayed in Table 9.
When Table 9 was analysed, no development was observed among any of the focus pre-
service science teachers in the first 2 weeks in the sub-dimensions of the environmentally
responsible behaviour scale. In the third week, the pre-service science teacher coded as S4 was
found to have developed in terms of his environmentally responsible behaviours. In the
interview, pre-service science teacher (participant) S4 replied to our questions as follows:
BIn the past I did not react to people who threw waste on the floor, even though the dustbin was
only one metre farther from where they were standing. But now I am conscious, and I have
enough knowledge to discuss and respond to people about their misbehaviour.^ This answer
can be considered improvement of the participant’s environmentally responsible behaviour.
The same participant also said the following in the interview: BWhen we watch a movie about
nature, I try to watch the related videos at home. I also share them with friends on Facebook.^
This expression can be considered as a development in the pre-service science teachers’
behaviour towards nature. The same participant was found to be developing in the fourth,
fifth and sixth weeks. In the seventh week, development in S4’s sub-dimensions of recycling
efforts and environmental actions was also observed. A development in the overall responsible
behaviour scale was observed in the ninth week for S4.
When Table 9 was reviewed, the second developing participant was found to be the
participant coded S1. When the data were analysed for this participant, it was observed that
she had developed in the fourth week in terms of responsible behaviours such as protecting
sources that are for self-economic benefit of people through the recycling method. The
participant made the following statement related to this issue: BTeacher, I am completely
affected by the off-site classroom activities, so I started to collect paper and waste batteries. If
we are going to talk about activities, first we should be good examples to other people. For
example, I used to leave my charging device connected to electricity all the time, but now I am
more careful, and I take out my charging device as soon as it is filled.^ The participant’s
statement that she was collecting paper and batteries demonstrated her recycling efforts, and
her electricity-saving habit illustrated her resource-protection behaviour. In the seventh week,
S1 was observed to have developed in terms of free-time activities and responsible citizenship;
in the eleventh week, she was found to be an environmentally friendly consumer and an
environmental activist according to those sub-dimensions. In the final week, S1 shared the
following: BTeacher, I am more careful with my responsible behaviours not only at home but
also outside the home. My siblings are asking about reasons for these behaviours, and I have
explained them clearly so that they can understand and change their behaviours. My mother
has the same ideas that I have. She collects paper and waste batteries. She also tells her
colleagues to collect paper and batteries. We went to the IKEA and Metro shopping centres,
Table 9 Findings obtained from the sub-dimensions of the environmentally responsible behaviour scale by week of implementation
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Expressions Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Resource conservation activities for S1 Panel rehearsal S1 S1 Exam week S1, S4, S6 S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4,
people’s economic benefit S5, S6 S5, S6
Environmentally conscious consumers S4 S4 S1, S4, S5
Leisure activities related to nature S4 S4, S6 S4, S6 S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4,
S5, S6 S6 S5, S6 S5, S6
Recycling efforts S1 S1 S1, S3, S4, S6 S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4,
S5, S6 S5, S6 S5, S6
Responsible citizenship S4 S4 S4 S1, S3, S4, S5, S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4, S1, S2, S3, S4,
S6 S5, S6 S5, S6 S5, S6
Environmental activism S3, S4, S6 S3, S4, S6 S2, S3, S4, S6 S1, S2, S3, S4,
S5, S6
1011
1012 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

and we saw that the centres demanded money for bags. Their aim is to reduce the use of plastic
bags. We bought small nets for shopping, and we have been using them since them. It is a nice
feeling to become environmentally friendly people; everyone should try this feeling. I promise
I will do my best to develop my behaviours towards the environment and try to raise awareness
as much as I can. By the way, I am a member of the TEMA Foundation (The Turkish
Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for Reforestation and the Protection of Natural
Habitats).^ This participant demonstrated her development in terms of all of the sub-
dimensions of the responsible behaviour scale.
The student coded S6 was also observed to have developed in the fourth week in
terms of free-time activities related to nature. S6 said, BI am a member of the TEMA
Foundation now. They regularly send me messages about the environment. In the past, I
did not read such news, but now I am very interested in reading it.^ The participant
stated that S6 read books in his/her spare time, which supported the conclusion related to
development. In the seventh week, S6 showed development in the sub-dimensions of
recycling efforts, responsible citizenship and environmental activities. In the ninth week,
S6 was observed to have developed in the sub-dimensions of resource-protection activ-
ities for economic benefit. In that week, the S6 said, BI started to use less water thinking
that if I waste water and others waste water, the balance would be broken, which will
cause environmental problems. If we go on wasting water, the next generations will not
be able to find sufficient water. In addition to this, I pay special attention to recycling
products. I collect waste paper. I and my family are also members of the TEMA
Foundation (The Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for Reforestation
and the Protection of Natural Habitats). In fact, we are all members of TEMA! ...
Considering all these statements by S6, it can be said that S6 tries to protect the
environment and environmental resources through her efforts to collect recycling prod-
ucts such as paper. She can also be said to have developed in environmental activism
because she became a member of TEMA. No findings were obtained regarding the sub-
dimension of environmentally friendly consumers.
When the development of the participant coded S3 was analysed in the seventh week.
He was found to have improved in the sub-dimensions of environmental activism,
recycling efforts, responsible citizenship and free-time environmental activities. S6 ex-
plained: BThanks to the classroom activities and the presentations done at the panel, I
became much more environmentally friendly. I will not throw any waste on the floor, and I
will never spit … This week we planted trees with our friends from class and outside of
class. It was a really impressive activity. While planting, I was very happy with the feeling
of being helpful and doing something; when you do something for nature, you really feel
different. Therefore, I will go on joining such activities in addition to our activities. I
already collect batteries. And, from the photos, I began to see the environment from
different perspectives.^ S6’s statement BI already collect batteries^ showed his recycling
efforts. BThis week we planted trees with our friends from class and outside of class. It was
a really impressive activity. While planting, I was very happy with the feeling of being
helpful and doing something; when you do something for nature, you really feel different.
Therefore, I will go on joining such activities in addition to our activities.^ This statement
also indicated to us that he is making an effort to participate in environmental activities,
indicating that he is attempting to be an environmental activist. In the tenth week, a
development was observed in the sub-dimension of resource-protection activities for
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1013

economic benefit. However, no finding was obtained for the sub-dimension of environ-
mentally friendly consumer.
When data for the participant coded S5 was analysed, the first development was
observed in the free-time activities related to nature and responsible citizenship sub-
dimensions. S5 stated the following in the interviews: BTeacher, while walking on the
street, I began to question how the stones were formed. By looking from different
perspectives, I can see that trees are healthy thanks not only to photosynthesis but also
to their other characteristics. I like this lesson because it improves our general knowl-
edge. I also began to notice environmental problems through the outdoor education
activities. I questioned myself about the reasons for these problems and began to predict
the results. For example, I noticed air pollution and found that the solution is planting
trees. I make an effort to convince other people to be environmentally friendly. Last
week, I saw a woman throwing her chewing gum on the floor. I warned her not to do that
again and explained what problems discarded chewing gum can cause. She was angry
with me, but I did not feel bad. Even now I would do the same. I am aware of the
environment, and I will try to raise this awareness in people I meet.^ S5’s statement
above indicated her development in terms of responsible citizenship skills. Development
in relation to recycling efforts was observed in the tenth week, whereas resource-
protection activities development was observed in the tenth week. At the end of eleventh
week, developments in all the sub-dimensions of the scale were observed. The partici-
pant coded S5 said the following: BWe are aware of nature, the environment and
environmental problems now. Furthermore, we have begun to think about the reasons
for these problems, and we are trying to find solutions; firstly, by taking individual
responsibility for nature. In the past, I did not notice many environmental problems, but
now I notice many things such as the dust cloud in Ankara. My friends and I have
watched many videos related to nature and share them via social networks. We also
collect waste paper and batteries and warn others about collecting waste paper and
batteries. Last week, we decided not to use plastic bags anymore. Instead, we bought
net bags, but I prefer using a backpack. We try to increase the number in our group. And
we are looking forward to see what is going to happen.^ This quote highlights how
the participant demonstrated her environmental activism and sensitivity.
Lastly, the participant coded S2 also showed development in the seventh week in the
free-time activities related to nature sub-dimension. S2 said that B… we arranged a picnic
to observe the behaviours of people towards the environment. Our classes affected my
sensitivity to nature. I began to observe and understand the environment. Sometimes, I
tell myself that we have learned many things in the environment class …^ In the ninth
week, this student was observed to have developed in terms of recycling efforts,
responsible citizenship and environmental activism. In the tenth week, she had improved
in resource-protection activities. There was no finding related to the environmentally
friendly consumer sub-dimension.

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Perceptions of the Environmental Science Class

in which the Argumentation- and Problem-Based Learning Activities Were
Implemented

Using content analysis, themes were derived from the pre-service science teachers’ perceptions
of the environmental science class in which the argumentation- and problem-based learning
1014 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

activities were implemented. For this process, firstly, the interview records have been
deciphered. The coded interview records are examined, and the records are divided into
meaningful sections. The Bsentence^ and Bthe paragraphs^ were handled for these sections.
The sentences and paragraphs that make up the meaningful whole within themselves are coded
by the researcher. The concepts used in the coding are derived from the data set. In the next
stage, similar codes were combined under a common theme. The obtained data are displayed
in Table 10.
An analysis of Table 10 reveals that pre-service science teachers mainly valued the
online argumentation activities since the activities helped them prepare before coming to
class (f:8). Related to this theme, S1 said, BAt the beginning of the lesson, the teacher
asked us some questions; these questions led me to do research. I learnt which type of
information is where; thus, I began to conduct detailed research into it on the Internet.
After reading all the information, I was beginning to analyse. Therefore, I think that
some of my skills like collecting, interpreting and analysing data were developed. While
searching the Internet, I came up with different information and ideas, and I learned
something more that I didn’t know. Thus, my knowledge developed.^ The student coded
S2 also added the following: BI can say that the activity that we did before beginning the

Table 10 The pre-service science teachers’ views regarding environmental science class in which the argumen-
tation and problem-based learning approaches were applied

Themes Categories Frequency Total Percentage

frequency between
themes (%)

1. Online argumentation activities 1.1 Data collection skills 1 14 18.18

1.2 Data analysis skills 2
1.3 Data interpretation skills 1
1.4 Preparing before coming to class 8
1.5 Limited participant 2
2. Classroom argumentation 2.1 Gaining knowledge 9 31 40.26
activities 2.1.1 Acquiring correct knowledge 4
2.1.2 Using knowledge 5
2.2 Sensitivity 3
2.3 Self-confidence 4
2.4 Skills 15
2.4.1 Critical thinking 4
2.4.2 Participating in group work 1
2.4.3 Defending ideas 5
2.4.4 Analysing environmental 5
problems
3. Problem-based activities 3.1 Self-confidence 3 19 24.67
3.2 Knowledge 1
3.3 Using the information taught in 5
class
3.4 Having group integrity 1
3.5 Behaviour change 8
3.6 Awareness 1
4. General evaluation 4.1 All complex 5 13 16.88
4.2 Limited hours of the lessons 3
4.3 Student centred 3
Total 77 100
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1015

lesson encouraged me to get prepared before coming to class. I can see what my friends
are doing, and I try to find some evidence so that I can defend my ideas.^ The participant
coded S4 stated that BThe activities done before class are quite helpful for us. The
argumentation activity really requires being prepared. At first, I didn’t prepare before the
lesson, and that decreased the efficiency of the lesson because I couldn’t defend my
evidence. However, I later began to prepare, which helped me to have more efficient
lessons. Otherwise, if you asked us to study a specific issue, it wouldn’t be so
impressive.^ These statements showed us that the pre-lesson activities achieved their
goals. However, the pre-service science teachers also complained about the restriction
related to internet usage since some people do not like social networks and thus do not
want to be involved in such activities (S6, S5). S6 expressed that the Bonline activities
were all enjoyable, but not everyone joined these activities since some of them do not
have an internet connection in their houses. However at least they were able read what
we have said in the online discussions so they were aware of the issues we would talk
about during the next lesson.^
The analysis of Table 10 revealed that in the framework of the argumentation method, the
perceptions of the pre-service science teachers focused on gaining knowledge (acquiring
correct knowledge, using knowledge) (f:9), sensitivity (f:3), self-confidence (f:4) and skills
(critical thinking, participating in the group, defending ideas, analysing environmental prob-
lems) (f:15).
The pre-service science teachers mentioned that they had learnt how to acquire knowledge
and how to use knowledge, and they said they used the information that they actively learnt
during the analyses of the environmental problems. S6 stated that BIn the environmental
lesson, we frequently discussed a problem, and we used our knowledge of it. And thus we
learn how to use the knowledge when needed. Not only in the classroom but also out of the
classroom I began to be active in environmental problems and solutions.^ He emphasised that
he had used the knowledge while analysing the problems. S2 added Bcoming out of the pre-
knowledge discussion and finding the right way by talking about that knowledge was very
good.^ She emphasised the activeness of the lesson.
Related to the skill dimension, pre-service science teachers shared their ideas about critical
thinking, participation in group work, defending an opinion and analysing environmental
problems. The participant coded S5 shared the following about the analysis of environmental
problems: BTeacher, it was very effective. I try to understand the environmental events around
me, and I also think about the solutions. After this lesson, I found myself looking for a cause
and effect relationship.^ S6 added the following regarding critical thinking: BI learn how to
evaluate different ideas and while learning, my knowledge about the environment has
increased. In fact, I call this general information because I developed my behaviours. For
example, I follow the news and comment about events.^
Regarding the skills to defend an idea, S3 stated that BWe began to defend our opinions,
and we know how to do it. In the first two years, I had the knowledge, but I was not able to
transfer this knowledge.^ S2 said, BClassroom activities were very good. We not only learn
how to defend our opinions, but also acquired knowledge and skills about the
environment.^
Lastly, with respect to participating in group work activities, the participant coded S2
stated, BIn the past, no one was listening to each other’s opinions, but now everyone listens
to each other and discusses which opinions are more meaningful. And we analyse these
opinions.^ Given the statements of the pre-service science teachers, it can be concluded
1016 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

that the classroom activity goals related to the development of cognitive skills towards the
environment were achieved.
According to the analysis of Table 10, the opinions of the pre-service science teachers
relating to the problem-based outdoor education activities focused on behaviour change
(f:8) and the use of knowledge taught in class (f:5). S5 stated the following regarding
behaviour change: BWe believed so much in environmental development. Our perspec-
tives and behaviours have changed and still continue to change. For example, I prefer
rechargeable batteries to economize and save nature and pay only 5 liras more. They
work for two years. That is to say, I do not throw batteries into nature for two years. I
also try not to buy cheap clothes in order to use the products longer rather than throwing
them into the dustbin. I also prefer environmentally friendly bags instead of general
plastic bags. In the supermarkets, I try to use recycled bags or cloth bags. In fact, I can
say that I am very careful with my behaviours related to nature. As soon as I begin
feeling sensitive, I become happy.^ The participant coded S1 described using the
knowledge acquired in the lesson in the following way: BThe outdoor activities helped
us to apply the knowledge we have learnt in class. Therefore, I believe that the outdoor
activities really developed my behaviours because they showed us how to implement.
The more we did the more we learnt that we could apply what we learnt. I am very
careful about waste paper and batteries. I feel that I am conscious about protecting
nature. However, one person is not enough to save nature, so we should raise the
environmental awareness of others, too.^ In addition, in the activities conducted outside
the classroom, the pre-service science teachers were also found to have gained sensitivity
towards the environment and to have increased their self-confidence in taking precau-
tions for environmental events and warning people when needed.
When Table 10 was analysed, it was observed that the pre-service science teachers
were all pleased with the student-centred method applied during the lesson hours.
Related to this issue S4 stated that BStudents-centred activities are applied in our lessons.
I felt that what we do ourselves raised the efficiency of the courses. The lecturer’s
teaching the lesson in a student-centred way taught us the efficiency of teaching in this
way rather than telling us that it is efficient. The question of how I can teach my students
in the classroom was answered by showing us the way. It was very pleasant for me to
have such a lesson. In the past, I didn’t think like this, but now I feel that student-centred
lessons helped us a lot. I would like to thank you for this effective teaching method.^ S6
also stated the following: Bif I had not had this lesson, I would only have acquired the
knowledge without applying it. I would be limited to the presentations of the lecturer.
Thanks to that lesson, I learnt how to make a lesson enjoyable by learning the knowledge
not only theoretically but also practically. It is more tiring for both lecturers and students;
however, it is more enjoyable and effective.^ S1 added that BI think these activities are
like dominos. Argumentation-based learning is very useful, but it really requires being
prepared before the lesson. This application is very necessary to motivate us to get
prepared. We know better how to acquire knowledge, how we are going to get ready and
where we are going to search. The classroom activities were very effective. Considering
all the ideas and trying to find the most correct one and defending it with some data
worked well. In the outdoor education activities, we learnt how to use the knowledge we
learnt during the lessons. I believe that environmental science class is just like dominoes.
If you miss one of the dominoes, the others will be insufficient.^ Lastly, the pre-service
science teachers also stated that the lesson hours are not sufficient and should be
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1017

increased. Considering the pre-service science teachers’ statements, it can be said that
implementations have achieved the intended goals.

Discussion

A qualified science teacher should have the necessary skills to be effective in teaching and be a
good guide in helping students gain targeted skills. Recently, environmental literacy in science
teaching has been considered one of these skills. With respect to pre-service teachers acquiring
basic education from education faculties, teachers are expected to develop their environmental
literacy skills through a well-prepared teaching approach. Formal and informal teaching are
important in developing environmental literacy skills in environmental education; therefore, in
this study, in the framework of environmental science lessons, it is thought that argumentation
and problem-based teaching will contribute to the development of environmentally responsible
behaviours, which is one of the skills of environmental literacy. In this regard, it is observed in
this study that there is a statistically significant difference in the average post-test scores of pre-
service science teachers on the environmentally responsible behaviour scale. The obtained
findings demonstrate that argumentation and problem-based learning can be effective in the
development of the sub-dimensions of responsible behaviour and environmental literacy
among the pre-service science teachers. The quantitative findings are supported by semi-
structured interview results. When the related literature is reviewed, no studies are found that
support the notion that only argumentation-based learning activities positively affects behav-
iours towards the environment. However, there are many studies showing that informal
activities are associated with positive attitudes and values regarding the environment and that
these activities help knowledge transform into behaviours (Farmer et al. 2007). On the other
hand, in this study, it has been found that the application of an argumentation-based learning
approach is effective in the development of positive environmentally responsible behaviours
because pre-service science teachers learn how to deal with an environmental problem and
how to find solutions. Developing content acquisition among the pre-service science teachers
through argumentation-based learning can be basic step in developing positive behaviours by
helping pre-service science teachers learn how to consider an environmental problem or how
to analyse it. Also, problem-based learning activities conducted outside the classroom can be
said to help students study an actual environmental problem and find solutions to address it.
Thus, this activity will develop the positive behaviour of the students towards the environment.
When the qualitative data were analysed the pre-service science teachers initially showed
positive developments in the free-time activities related to nature and recycling effort sub-
dimensions. The pre-service science teachers watched videos during attention-attracting activ-
ities and were asked to show some evidence from the news during online discussions. In this
regard, pre-service science teachers were observed to have shared different videos they
watched about the environment on the discussion site, and they also shared current news with
friends. Therefore, it can be said that the discussions held in the classroom and in the online
chats required pre-service science teachers to collect some data for these argumentation-based
activities. This situation aided pre-service science teachers in engaging in free-time activities
related to the environment. The following week, it was determined that the pre-service science
teachers were involved in recycling efforts. The reasons for this can be attributed to two
different (battery and paper) recycling activities conducted outside of class. The pre-service
science teachers participated in the recycling activities and raised the awareness of the people
1018 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

around them. Concordantly, the pre-service science teachers not only learned to be conscious
of the environment but also how they could influence others to be environmentally friendly.
This behaviour developed the responsible citizenship behaviours of the pre-service science
teachers. According to the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews, the pre-service
science teachers had learnt how to persuade a person and how to transfer their knowledge to
others. That is to say, they gained the skills to warn others about misbehaviours or senseless
behaviours. The pre-service science teachers noted that both the classroom activities and the
outdoor education activities helped them gain all these skills. In addition to the recycling effort
of the pre-service science teachers, it was confirmed that their behaviours towards resource-
protection activities that are economically beneficial for people also developed. The findings
related to this behaviour were observed after the issues related to environmental pollution were
presented. Erten (2003) states that knowing the causes and effects of environmental problems
plays a motivating role in helpful environmental protection behaviours. Consequently, learning
about environmental pollution can result in the positive development of pre-service science
teachers’ behaviours. Conversely, when the quantitative data were analysed, no significant
difference was found between the pre-test and post-test scores for the resource-protection
activities sub-dimension. The pre-service science teachers earned high scores on the pre-test,
so although they increased their scores on the post-test, there may not be a significant
difference. Positive development was observed among the pre-service science teachers in
terms of being sensitive consumers and environmental activities in the last week.
On the other hand, according to the findings obtained from the qualitative data tools, in
the first 3 weeks of the study, there was no behaviour development; however, after the
fourth week, positive development was observed in the behaviour sub-dimensions. Relat-
ed to this issue, Erten (2003) states that effective environmental education provides
ecological knowledge, knowledge of how to develop attitudes towards the environment
and how to turn these attitudes into behaviours. Therefore, it can be said that pre-service
science teachers first increase their knowledge; the increase in knowledge then affects their
cognitive abilities; and over time, the development of cognitive abilities causes changes in
their behaviours.
To determine the effectiveness of the lessons, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with six pre-service science teachers at the end of the class in which the argumentation and
problem-based methods were used. The pre-service science teachers were asked four questions
about classroom activities, outdoor education activities, online activities and the plan of the
lesson. The pre-service science teachers stated during the interviews that they were very
pleased with the argumentation-based activities. The pre-service science teachers also noted
that they developed their skills related to critical thinking, being active in group-work
activities, defending their ideas, analysing environmental problems, acquiring correct knowl-
edge, using knowledge and having self-confidence and sensitivity. In other studies of the
argumentation-based approach, a development was observed in pre-service science teachers’
critical thinking skills and cognitive processes (Chin 2004; Chin and Osborne 2008). In
addition, some studies were found that defend the notion that argumentation-based activities
are effective in terms of gaining knowledge (Hand and Keys 1999; Hohenshell and Hand
2006) and cognitive skills (Erduran et al. 2006). In these interviews, the pre-service science
teachers also mentioned gaining self-confidence. Kingir et al. (2011) stated in their research
that argumentation-based activities helped students to express themselves and increased their
feeling of self-confidence. Therefore, the findings of this study are consistent with other
studies conducted in the literature.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1019

When the perceptions of the pre-service science teachers about online argumentation were
analysed, it was revealed that pre-service science teachers focus on collecting data and
analysing data. Moreover, they said that although the online dimension of the activity it is
limited to the internet, it is an effective method for preparing for the lesson. Kaya et al. (2004)
examined the effects of online argumentation activities on training courses for fourth-grade
science students. When the students in that study were asked about the online activities, they
stated that the most restrictive element of the activity was connecting to internet and having a
private computer device. On the other hand, the students claimed that this method was very
useful in sharing knowledge, having discussions and analysing knowledge. Therefore, the
findings of this study can be said to be consistent with other studies in the literature.
When the pre-service science teachers’ perceptions of the problem-based outdoor education
activities were analysed, they emphasised gaining self-confidence, gaining knowledge, learn-
ing group integrity, behaviour change and awareness and using the knowledge learned in the
classroom. According to Ghosh (1993) and Johnson (1999), problem-based activities help
students develop their critical thinking skills, have empathy and increase their inner motivation
and self-discipline. Hence, the findings of this study can said to be consistent with other studies
in the literature. Lastly, when the pre-service science teachers’ perceptions were analysed, it
was revealed that all the activities have integrity, that the activities are student-centred and that
the classroom hours are limited.
As a result, in this research, it has been determined that uses of both argumentation-based
learning approach (in-class activities) and problem-based learning approach (out-of-class activities)
have positive effects on the responsible behaviours of the pre-service science teachers. But
neither argumentation-based learning approach nor problem-based learning approach alone is not
sufficient for the development of environmentally responsible behaviours. The co-implementation
of these two approaches leads to a noteworthy improvement in favourable environmentally
responsible behaviours. Because of this, with only classroom activities, students grow independently
of nature. Students are thus not supported to live in nature in authentic experiences (Charles and
Louv 2009; Louv 2005). The tendency of pupils to participate in events involving electronic media
has increased the gap between children and nature in many respects. Decreased experience of
individuals in nature leads to a decrease in students’ interest and ability to protect nature. In addition,
increased emphasis on virtual experiences and less authentic outdoor experiences contribute to
obesity, attention deficit and depression in children (Louv 2005). On the other hand, with the
planned implementation of the extra-class activities, a positive development is observed in the
attitudes and interest towards the environment of the students (Ayotte-Beaudet et al. 2017). The
results of other studies related to out-of-class education showed that such learning environments also
lead to positive developments in some skills such as knowledge, attitude and motivation of the
students (Bogner 2002; Braund and Reiss 2006; Fägerstam 2014; Fägerstam and Blom 2013;
Hovardas 2016). For example, Fägerstam and Blom (2013) found that students studying out-of-class
activities remembered their knowledge for a longer period of time. So, out-of-class and in-class
activities coordination to complement each other within the curriculum framework has a more
positive impact on learning than closed-door teaching alone (Rickinson et al. 2004; Ayotte-Beaudet
et al. 2017). This research supports the notion that classroom activities and out-of-class activities
must be implemented together in environmental education. However, development in environmen-
tally responsible behaviour is observed at different times according to type of behaviour. In order to
be able to see improvement in behaviours, first of all, students need sufficient pre-knowledge and
skills. Nature-related leisure activities and responsible citizen dimension need to be developed first.
In this study as the pre-service science teachers’ subject matter knowledge about the nature increases,
1020 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

their interest and curiosity about the nature and the events in the nature have been shown to
have increased. An increase in pre-service science teachers interest in nature in their free time was
seen in this study. The pre-service science teachers’ interest in nature provided them with great-
er understanding of nature and the rules of nature. This situation supported the development of
the responsible behaviour dimension. So, pre-service science teachers have begun to be more
conscious of nature. That is, they are beginning to show nature-conscious consumer behaviour.
This development has enabled them to increase in terms of resource conservation activities for
people’s economic benefit and recycling efforts dimensions. This environmentally responsive
consumer dimension is the dimension which the last development seen in this study. This dimension
includes all other dimensions as the name implies. So, the last dimension that develops is this
dimension, with the factors affecting the development of the environmentally responsible behaviours
being the development of preliminary knowledge and skills and coverage of the related behaviours.

References

Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and
implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81.
Aldağ, H. (2005). The effects of textual and graphical-textual argumentation software as cognitive tools on
development of argumentation skills. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Cukurova University, Adana.
Aldağ, H. (2006). The Toulmin model of argumentation. Journal of Çukurova University Institute of Social
Sciences, 15(1), 13–34.
Arı, E., & Yılmaz, V. (2017). Effects of environmental illiteracy and environmental awareness among middle
school students on environmental behavior. Environment, Development & Sustainability, 19(5), 1779–1793.
Ayotte-Beaudet, J.-P., Potvin, P., Lapierre, H. G., & Glackin, M. (2017). Teaching and learning science outdoors
in schools’ immediate surroundings at K–12 levels: a meta-synthesis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 5343–5363.
Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: a UK case study of household waste
management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435–473.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education, series on
medical education. New York: Springer Verlag.
Baysal, Z. N. (2017). The problem-based learning process: reflections of pre-service elementary school teachers.
Educational Research and Reviews, 12(4), 177–188.
Bergman, M. M. (Ed.). (2008). Advances in mixed methods research: theories and applications. London: Sage.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific
argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: a rherotical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bogner, F. X. (2002). The influence of a residential outdoor education programme to pupil’s environmental
perception. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(1), 19–34.
Bossley, J.P.(2016). Environmental impact from outdoor/environmental education programs: effects of frequent
stream classes on aquatic macroinvertebrates. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,
USA.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem based learning. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.
Carter, R. L., & Simmons, B. (2010). The history and philosophy of environmental education. In A. Bodzin, B.
S. Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 3–
16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Chao, S., & Lam, P. (2011). Measuring responsible environmental behavior: self-reported and other-reported
measures and their differences in testing a behavioral model. Environment and Behavior, 43, 53–71.
Charles, C. & Louv R. (2009). Children’s nature deficit: what we know and don’t know. Children and Nature
Network, Minneapolis, MN
Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2010). Connection to nature: children’s affective attitude toward nature.
Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31–49.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1021

Chin, C. (2004). Students’ questions: fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. School Science
Review, 86(314), 107–112.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science.
Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
Chu, H.-E., Shin, D. H., & Lee, M. N. (2006). Korean students’ environmental literacy and variables affecting
environmental literacy. In S. Wooltorton & D. Marinova (Eds.), Sharing wisdom for our future: Environmental
education in action: proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association for Environmental
Education. Bellingen, Australia: Australian Association for Environmental Education.
Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for
nature. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Conceicao, S. C., & Taylor, L. (2007). Using a constructivist approach with online concept maps: relationship
between theory and nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28(5), 268–275.
Corey, G. (2012). Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy (9th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Demirkaya, H., Mutlu, M., & Uşak, M. (2003). 4MAT teaching system model and it’s applications to
environmental education. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 2(14), 68–82.
Derman, A., Sahin, E., & Hacieminoglu, E. (2016). Does outdoor education make any difference in environ-
mental literacy of pre-service classroom teachers? International Journal of Environmental and Science
Education, 11(15), 8491–8506.
Dinsinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (1998). Environmental literacy. ERIC/CSMEE Digest. Colombus, OH, ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, ED 351201.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the
classroom. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–12.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning: a practical ‘how to’ for
teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., & Jackson, J. M. (1993). Critical review of
behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25,
275–321.
Edens, K. M. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning. College
Teaching, 48(2), 55−60.
Erdoğan, M.(2009). Fifth grade students’ environmental literacy and the factors affecting students’ environmentally
responsible behaviors. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School of Social Sciences Middle East
Technical University, Ankara.
Erduran, S., Ardaç, D., & Yakmacı-Güzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: case studies of pre-
service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
2(2), 1–14.
Ernst, J. (2007). Factors associated with K-12 teachers’ use of environment-based education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 38(3), 15–32.
Erten, S. (2003). By the study of a teaching model on development of awareness on Bgarbage reduction^ for the
fifth class students, HacettepeÜniversity. Journal of Education, 25, 94–103.
Erten, S. (2005). Investigation of preservice preschool teachers’ behaviors related to environmental awareness.
The Journal of HacettepeÜniversity Education Faculty., 28, 91–100.
Eshach, H. (2006). Bringing in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal and informal education.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190.
Fägerstam, E. (2014). High school teachers’ experience of the educational potential of outdoor teaching and
learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(1), 56–81.
Fägerstam, E., & Blom, J. (2013). Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: effects and attitudes in a Swedish
high school context. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 13(1), 56–75.
Farmer, J., Knapp, D., & Benton, M. G. (2007). An elementary school environmental education field trip: long-
term effects on ecological and environmental knowledge and attitude development. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 38(3), 33–42.
Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2014). Argumentation-based learning teaching approach. In G. Ekici, & M. Güven (Ed.),
Learning teaching approaches and examples of its implementation (pp. 158-198). Ankara: PEGEM A.
Foss, S., Foss, K., & Trapp, R. (2001). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric prospect heights. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Pr Inc..
1022 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill, Inc..
Friedman S., & Deek F. P.(2003). The integration of problem-based learning and problem-solving tools
distributed education environments. http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2002/papers/1208.pdf.
Gan, D., Pizmony-Levi, O., &Peled, O. (2002). Environmental education in primary school- The Environmental
Guardian Program. SPNI [Hebrew].
Ghosh, S. (1993). Exercise in inducing creativity in undergraduate engineering students through
challenging examinations and open-ended design problems. IEEE Transactions on Education,
36(1), 113–119.
Gigliotti, L. (1990). Environmental education: what went wrong? What can be done? The Journal of
Environmental Education, 22(1), 9–12.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-
analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.
Goldman, D., Yavetz, B., & Pe'er, S. (2006). Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: Environmental
behavior of new students. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 3-22.
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: the effect of place attachment. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 30(2010), 409–421.
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation: a new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher,
66, 27–29.
Harlow, D., & Otero, V. (2004). An examination of children’s scientific argumentation. Physics Education
Research Conference Proceedings, 720, 145–148.
Hartig, T., Kaiser, E., & Bowler, P. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as a positive motivation for
ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 590–607.
Harvey, G. (1977). A conceptualization of environmental education. In J. Aldrich, A. Balckburn, & G. Abel
(Eds.), A report on the north american regional seminar on environmental education (pp. 66–77).
Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environ-
mental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn-strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed
method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261–289.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., & Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: a synthesis of
research results. Journal of SocioEconomics, 24(1), 105–127.
Hovardas, T. (2016). Primary school teachers and outdoor education: varying levels of teacher leadership in
informal networks of peers. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(3), 237–254.
Hsu, S. J. (1997). An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of responsible environ-
mental behavior held by secondary teachers in Hualien country of Taiwan. Unpublished Doctoral disserta-
tion, Ohio State University (UMI Number: 9731641).
Hsu, S. J., & Roth, R. E. (1998). An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of
responsible environmental behavior held by secondary teachers in the Hualien area of Taiwan.
Environmental Education Research, 4(3), 229–249.
Huang, H.-P., & Yore, L. D. (2005). A comparative study of Canadian and Taiwanese grade 5 children's environmental
behaviors, attitudes, concerns, emotional dispositions, and knowledge. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 1(4), 419–448.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in
high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers?
Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science
Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
Johnson, P. (1999). Problem-based, cooperative learning in the engineering classroom. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(1), 8–11.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: implications for problem-based learning. The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 6–28.
Kals, F., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to
protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1023

Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (2001). Problem-based learning approach in science education. Hacettepe University
Journal of Education, 20, 191–192.
Karen, E., & Downing, J. (2013). Using problem-based learning to facilitate student learning. ACRL, 621–624.
Kaya, O. N., Doğan, A., Kılıç, Z., & Ebenezer, J. (2004). Preservice science teachers views on their online argumen-
tations about what is happening in the middle school science classrooms during their practicum periods. Paper
presented at the 18th International Conference on Chemical Education, Istanbul, Turkey. (ED 500727).
Kingir, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2011). Students’ ideas about the implementation of the argumentation based
science inquiry approach in their chemistry course. Journal of Selcuk University Ahmet Keleşoğlu Education
Faculty, 32, 15–28.
Klineberg, S. L. (1998). Environmental attitudes among Anglos, Blacks, and Hispanics in Texas: has the concern
gap disappeared? Race, Gender and Class, 6, 70–82.
Kostova, Z., & Atasoy, E. (2008). Methods of successful learning in environmental education. Journal of Theory
and Practice in Education, 4(1), 49–78.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260.
Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydin, A. (2016). An examination of prospective elementary science teachers’ perspective
towards socio-scientific argumentation. Science Education International, 27(3), 323–343.
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC:
Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Marcinkowski, T. (2006). Analysis of the Bforerunners^ and their contributions. [EDS5410 Course notes].
Foundations of Environmental Education, Department of Science and Math Education, Florida Institute of
Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA.
Marcinkowski, T. J. (1988). An analysis of correlates and predictors of responsible environmental behavior.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Marinopoulos, D., & Stavridou, H. (2002). The influence of a collaborative learning environment on primary
students’ conceptions about acid rain. Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 18–24.
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by
epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.
Mathews, L.M. (2011). Problem-based learning and knowledge transfer in a vocational nursing program.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Capella University (UMI Number: 3460637).
McCrea, E. J. (2006). The roots of environmental education: how the past supports the future. Environmental
Education and Training Partnership (EETAP).
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Newton, D. P. (2013). Moods, emotions and creative thinking: a framework for teaching. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 8, 34–44.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.
International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
Newton, M.H. (2016). A longitudinal examination of a SSI-embedded experiential environmental education
course and environmental behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.
Nisbet, G., Hendry, G. D., Rolls, G., & Field, M. J. (2008). Interprofessional learning for prequal-
ification health care students: an outcomes-based evaluation. Journal of Interprofessional Care,
22(1), 57–68.
Nitowski, H. (2014). An investigation of the factors that influence students’ long term application of environ-
mental literacy skills. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Western Connecticut State University.
Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of the
evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557–565.
Nussbaum, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: the role of epistemological
beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28,
573–595.
Oh, J. Y. (2014). Understanding the alternative conceptions of pre-service secondary science teachers about tidal
phenomena based on Toulmin’s argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 12(2), 353–370.
Osbaldiston, R. (2004). Meta-analysis of the responsible environmental behavior literature. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia (UMI Number: 3144447).
Oweini, A., & Houri, A. (2006). Factors affecting environmental knowledge and attitudes among Lebanese
college students. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 5(2), 95–105.
Pike, J. C., Spangler, W., Williams, V., & Kollar, R. (2017). Role-playing and problem-based learning: the use of
cross-functional student teams in business application development. Information Systems Education Journal,
15(4), 75–83.
1024 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025

Pooley, J., & O’Conner, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: emotions and beliefs are what is
needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711–723.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern and environmental behavior: a study
into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70–93.
Puvirajah, A. (2007). Exploring the quality and credibility of students argumentation: teacher facilitated
technology embedded scientific inquiry. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of
research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s
College London.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. Columbus: The Ohio
State University.
Saltan, F., & Divarci, O. F. (2017). Using blogs to ımprove elementary school students’ environmental literacy in
science class. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 347–355.
Scannella, A., & McCarthy, S. (2014). Teacher evaluation adversity or opportunity? Principal Leadership, 14(5),
52–55.
Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27,
422–432.
Shepard, L. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 66–70.
Shin, D., Chu, H., Lee, E., Ko, H., Lee, M., Kang, K., Min, B., & Park, J. (2005). An assessment of Korean
students’ environmental literacy. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 26(4), 358–364.
Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1985). Selected predictors of responsible environmental
behavior: an analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2), 31–40.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17, 159–176.
Simmons, D. (1995). Working paper 2: developing a framework for national environmental education standards.
In: Papers on the Development of Environmental Education Standards (pp. 53–58). Troy, OH: NAAEE.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the
science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.
Sivek, D. J., & Hungerford, H. (1989/1990). Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three Wisconsin
conservation organizations. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 35–40.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Licoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research. London: Sage Publication.
Stapp, W. B. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research
agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional and interdisci-
plinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(4), 338–357.
Timur, S. (2011). Determining environmental literacy levels of preservice science teachers. Unpublished doctoral
thesis, GaziÜniversity, Ankara.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2005). Guidelines and recommen-
dations for reorienting teacher education to address sustainability. Paris: UNESCO: Education for
Sustainable Development in Action Technical Paper No. 2.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory.
A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Volk, T. L. & McBeth, B. (1998). Environmental literacy in the United States: what should be…what is…getting
from here to there. Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Wilke, R. (1995). Literacy model development and framework. In: R. Wilke (ed.), Environmental education
literacy/needs assessment project: assessing environmental literacy of students and environmental
education needs of teachers. Final Report for 1993–1995 (pp. 5–6). (Report to NCEET/University of
Michigan under U.S. EPA Grant NT901935–01-2). Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin,
Stevens Point.
Winther, A. A., Sadler, K. C., & Saunders, G. (2010). Approaches to environmental education. In A. Bodzin, B.
S. Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp.
31–49). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Yavetz, B., Goldman, D., & Peer, S. (2009). Environmental literacy of pre-service teachers in Israel: a
comparison between students at the onset and end of their studies. Environmental Education Research,
15(4), 393–415.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. London: Sage Publications.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:987–1025 1025

Young, A. J., & McElhone, M. J. (1986). Guidelines for the development of non-formal environmental
education. UNESCO. Environmental Education Series No. 23.
Zheng, Q., Xu, A., & Kong, D. (2017). Environmental education, knowledge management and professional
performance in eco-tourism: the impact relatedness. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and
Technology Education, 13(8), 4679–4687.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.