Sustainable Learning Levels of High School Students

Open access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine sustainable learning levels of students. The study also attempted to determine sustainable learning levels of students based on gender and grade. The participants of the study consisted of 742 high school students (354 females and 388 males) in various high schools in Babaeski district of Kırklareli, Turkey during the 2017–2018 academic year. In order to collect data, a scale with two subscales – behavioural and cognitive – was developed. The data were analysed through SPSS 17, and arithmetic mean, standard deviation, t-test and one-way analysis of variance (One Way Anova) were used. According to the results of the study, it is concluded that sustainable learning level of the high school students is moderate. The study also found a significant variation in favour of the female students in “learning for development” subdimension on the cognitive subscale of the scale.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alberici A. & Di Rienzo P. (2014). Learning to learn for the individual and society. Learning to Learn (pp. 103–120). UK: Routledge.

  • Anyolo E. O. Kärkkäinen S. & Keinonen T. (2018). Implementing education for sustainable development in Namibia: School teachers’ perceptions and teaching practices. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability20(1) 64–81.

  • Artemeva V. (2014). The future architects’ attitude towards innovations in the context of sustainable development. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education5(1) 31–37.

  • Balcı A. (2010). Glossary of explanatory educational management terms. Ankara: Pegem Press.

  • Baştürk S. (2011). Negative reflections of preparation process to the university entrance exam on studentsí mathematics learning. Hacettepe University Journal of Education40 69–79.

  • Blewitt J. (2004). Sustainability and lifelong learning. In J. Blewitt & C. Cullingford (Eds.). The sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education (pp. 24–42). Sterling VA; Earthscan.

  • Can R. Türkyılmaz M. & Karadeniz A. (2010). Adolescent studentsí reading habits. Journal of Education Faculty of Ahi Evran University11(3) 1–21.

  • Charungkaittikul S. & Henschke J. A. (2014). Strategies for developing a sustainable learning society: An analysis of lifelong learning in Thailand. International Review of Education60(4) 499–522.

  • Commission of the European Communities (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brussels. Retrived from http://arhiv.acs.si/dokumenti/Memorandum_on_Lifelong_Learning.pdf 13.04.2018

  • Çapri B. & Sönmez G. Y. (2013). Investigation of burnout scores of high school students according to socio-demographic variables psychological symptoms and attachment styles. Journal of Human Sciences10(2) 195–218.

  • Çeçen M. A. ve Deniz E. (2015). High school studentsí attitudes towards reading: The case of Diyarbakır. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute12(30) 193–312.

  • Dash G. & Mohan A. K. (2017). Education for sustainability: perception of teachers and practices in urban primary schools of Mysore. Gyanodaya: The Journal of Progressive Education10(2) 9–17.

  • Deniz L. & Karbeyaz A. (2018). School burnout in vocational-technical high school students. Trakya Journal of Education8(4) 735–755. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/trkefd/issue/39371/340592

  • Doğan S. Kırvak E. & Baran Ş. (2004). The levels of secondary school students making connection between daily life and the knowledge gained during biology lectures. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty6(1) 57–63.

  • Engin M. Kör H. & Erbay H. (2017). Turkish adaptation study of lifelong learning scale. Kastamonu Education Journal25(4) 1561–1572.

  • Eskici M. & Ilgaz G. (2019). High school students and mathematics in the light of attitude success and gender. Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University7(1) 335–345. doi: 10.18506/anemon.422161

  • Franzenburg G. (2017). Learning from the past for the future: How to make adult education sustainable. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education8(2) 57–65.

  • Göçmençelebi Ş.İ. & Özkan M. (2011). Does the use of technology and reading scientific publications affect the ability to relate science lesson knowledge to daily life a comparative study of turkish primary school student. Journal of Uludag University of Faculty of Education24(1) 287–296.

  • Gregor A. (2005). Examination anxiety: Live with it control it or make it work for you?. School Psychology International26(5) 617–635.

  • Gündüz Z. B. & Özyürek A. (2018). The relationship between school burnout level and parents attitudes of high school students. Elementary Education Online17(1) 384–395. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2018.413786

  • Gürel Z. Güven İ. & Gürdal A. (2003). Evaluation of skills of high school students in interpreting daily life events in lighth of the knowledge they learn in their physics lessons. Journal of Educational Sciences18 65–78.

  • Hargreaves A. & Fink D. (2003) The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Retrieved from http://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/.pdf

  • Hargreaves A. & Fink D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Hargreaves A. & Goodson I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational administration quarterly42(1) 3–41.

  • Hipp K. K. Huffman J. B. Pankake A. M. & Olivier D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of educational change9(2) 173–195.

  • Iliško Dz. (2007). Teachers as agents of societal change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability7 14–27.

  • Ipiranga A. S. R. & Aguiar M. M. S. (2014). Life work and sustainable learning practices: a study on a small business network. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review11(2) 145–163.

  • Kabadayı A. (2016). A suggested in-service training model based on Turkish preschool teachersí conceptions for sustainable development. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability18(1) 5–15.

  • Kumandaş H. & Kutlu Ö. (2014). The risk factors caused by exams used for student selection and placement into higher education on the academic performance. Turkish Journal of Psychology29(74) 15–31.

  • Kutsal D. & Bilge F. (2012). A Study on the burnout and social support levels of high school students. Education and Science37(164) 283–297.

  • Lambeir B. (2005). Education as liberation: The politics and techniques of lifelong learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory37(3) 350.

  • Marton F. & Saljo R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology46(1) 4–11.

  • Mau W. C. & Lynn R. (2000). Gender differences in homework and test scores in mathematics reading and science at tenth and twelfth grade. Psychology Evolution& Gender2(2) 119–125.

  • McCombs B. L. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist26(2) 117–127.

  • Mullins S. B. (2018). Establishing a community of discourse through social norms. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education9(1) 5–17.

  • Pahad A. (2012). Role of universities in life long learning for elderly people. Asian Journal of Home Science7(2) 600–604.

  • Palma L. C. & Pedrozo E. Á. (2015). Complex matrix for the analysis of sustainable transformative learning: an assessment methodology of sustainability integration in universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education40(6) 817–832.

  • Palmberg I. Hofman-Bergholm M. Jeronen E. & Yli-Panula E. (2017). Systems thinking for understanding sustainability? Nordic student teachers’ views on the relationship between species identification biodiversity and sustainable development. Education Sciences7(3) 72.

  • Pepper C. & Wildy H. (2008). Leading for sustainability: is surface understanding enough?. Journal of Educational Administration46(5) 613–629.

  • Raji M. & Zualkernan I. (2016). A decision tool for selecting a sustainable learning technology intervention. Journal of Educational Technology & Society19(3) 306.

  • Reid E. & Horváthová B. (2016). Teacher training programs for gifted education with focus on sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability18(2) 66–74.

  • Rorty R. (1989) Contingency irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Salīte I. (2008). Educational action research for sustainability: Constructing a vision for the future in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability10 5–16.

  • Strachan G. (2018). Can education for sustainable development change entrepreneurship education to deliver a sustainable future? Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education9(1) 36–49.

  • Taşkesenlioğlu L. (2013). A study about the reading habit of secondary school students. The Black Sea Journal of Social Sciences5(9) 261–273.

  • Temizyürek F. Çolakoğlu B. K. & Çoşkun S. (2013). Investigation of reading habits of the ninth grade students according to some variables. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences11(2) 114–150.

  • Tractenberg R. E. FitzGerald K.T. & Collmann J. (2017). Evidence of sustainable learning from the mastery rubric for ethical reasoning. Education Sciences7(2) 1–23. doi: 10.3390/educsci7010002 http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/7/1/2

  • Üstten A. U. & Pilav S. (2014). A research on high school students’ reading interests and habits. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education10(4) 764–782.

  • Wals A. E. & Jickling B. (2002). Sustainability in higher education: From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education3(3) 221–232.

  • Warburton K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education4(1) 44–56.

  • Yeni Palabiyik P. (2014). A study of Turkish high school students’ burnout and proficiency levels in relation to their sex. Novitas-ROYAL. Research on Youth and Language8(2) 169–177.

  • Yenilmez K. & Özabacı. Ş. N. (2003). An investigation on the relationship between mathematics and attitudes of mathematics on the level of maternity students. Pamukkale University Journal of Education (14) 132–146.

  • Yeşilyurt S. (2006). A study on high school students’ attitudes towards biology assignments. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty8(1) 37–53.

  • Younger M. & Warrington M. (1996). Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: Some observations from the perspective of one school. British Journal of Sociology of Education17(3) 299–313.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 190 190 27
PDF Downloads 105 105 17