In this study, the relationship between pre-service science teachers (PSTs) attitudes towards environmental education and their moral reasoning was investigated. Problems that we face as humans allow us to understand the importance of environmental education. We need individuals who respect the environment, work to solve current environmental problems, and strive to solve possible environmental issues. Also, we need individuals who do not hesitate to take individual and social responsibilities to contribute to the solutions of the environmental problems (Stapp, 1969). Thus, environmental education is required to achieve on this goal at all education levels (Varela-Losada et al., 2016), including teacher training. Environmental education courses should be added in teacher training curricula to grow-up environmentally literate teachers (Álvarez-García et al., 2015; Thompson 1997); so those environmentally literate teachers can help students be environmentally literate individuals (Thompson, 1997). Some researchers point out that teachers’ environmental beliefs are essential when teaching about environmental issues (Glackin, 2016; Mansour, 2010, 2013, as cited in Higde, 2017). Because teachers’ environmental beliefs, attitudes toward the environment, and environmental education are related to their effort in improving the quality of education that they will engage in.

Attitudes toward environmental education are described as how PSTs think about environmental education and how they see its importance. Many studies have been conducted to examine teachers’ attitudes toward environmental education (e.g., Kyridis et al., 2005; Pérez-Rodríguez et al., 2016). Kyridis et al. (2005) investigated early childhood pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward environmental education and found that they had positive attitudes toward environmental education. Their positive attitudes were developed by an environmental education course they took.  Thus, offering such courses during teacher education programs is quite essential to develop a positive environmental attitude.

Moral reasoning is defined as the process of deciding whether an idea is right or wrong (Littledkyke, 2004; Tuncay et al., 2011). Moral reasoning patterns were classified into three groups, eco-centric, anthropocentric, and non-environmental. Eco-centric moral reasoning is defined as giving respect and love to the environment for its own sake (Callicott, 2013). Anthropocentric moral reasoning is defined as giving importance to nature because it helps humans live, such as by providing natural sources. (Callicott, 2013; Tuncay et al., 2011). Non-environmental moral reasoning is defined as the tendency to emphasize environmental problems in a manner of law because behind the environmental issues there is lack of sanctions in force (Callicott, 2013; Tuncay et al., 2011). Kortenkamp et al. (2001) found that college students’ environmental attitudes were correlated with the moral reasoning types. The study revealed that when the participants got higher pro-environmental attitudes, they tended to hold more eco-centric and anthropocentric moral reasoning. However, there was a negative correlation between having higher pro-environmental scores and non-environmental moral reasoning. Karpiak et al, (2008) investigated the relationship between moral reasoning and concern for the environment. They found that eco-centrism was positively correlated with moral reasoning. They also found that while eco-centric moral reasoning was negatively correlated with apathy there was a positive correlation between anthropocentrism with apathy. The above-mentioned studies revealed that inconsistent findings were observed in addressing the relationships between environmental moral reasoning and attitudes. Especially for PST, very few studies are available. To improve the quality of environmental education in schools, pre-service teachers need to have effective training regarding environmental education. Thus, findings of this study may contribute such efforts both locally and globally.  

Qualitative and quantitative data were used in this study. The PSTs attitude toward environmental education was collected through a scale whereas their moral reasoning was collected with a case and open-ended questions. The study participants were PSTs enrolled in science education program of a public university. Totally 11 PSTs participated in this study voluntarily. Of these participants 55% were in third, and 45% were in fourth grade. To collect data two instruments were used. Forest Fires Case was used to examine PST’s moral reasoning pattern. The case was developed by Tuncay (2010). However, with the recent information and huge forest fires experienced in Summer of 2021 in Turkey, this case was updated. The original name of the case was changed from “Deforestation in Turkey” to “Forest Fires”. The participants answer relevant open-ended and Likert-type questions after reading the case. Open-ended question directed the PSTs to list at least four factors from the most important to least important regarding the case. Also, additional 10 questions revealed participants’ ideas about how much they agree with the information provided in the case, about presented problems regarding the natural environment and human beings, etc. All these questions enabled researchers to obtained detailed information about PSTs moral reasoning and underlying factors as well. Participant also completed Attitude Scale Toward Environmental Education (ASEE) instrument. ASEE was developed by Pérez-Rodríguez et al, (2016) and included 18 items with a five-point Likert-type scaling. ASEE had five sub-dimensions namely environmental education that would facilitate the transfer of learning, environmental problems, methodology based on participation and critical thinking, individual environmental responsibility, and prevailing socio-economic model. This scale was used to understand how PSTs’ attitudes toward environmental education can be helpful in addressing underlying reasons of moral reasoning obtained through the Forest Fires case. Data collection was done by using Google Forms link. The instructors of the PSTs informed the PSTs about the study and volunteered students filled the form. Data analysis was done by using content analysis for the responses obtained through the case. SPSS was used to analyze responses obtained through ASEE and Forest Fire Case.

The Forest Fire Case analysis for item1 revealed that eight PSTs provided eco-centric reasons. The most important responses were listed as loss of forest (frequency (f=4), loss of biodiversity (f=2), air pollution (f=1), and loss of habitats for living things (f=1). One participant presented anthropocentric reasoning by indicating human health problems and another one provided non-environmental reasoning by stating failure of the government to take the necessary actions in a timely manner. For the second ordered responses loss of biodiversity (f=4) was the most frequent response. There were four other eco-centric and one non-environmental reasoning. When the third and fourth responses were analyzed, the frequency of eco-centric moral reasoning decreased, 5 and 3 respectively. PSTs showed more anthropocentric and non-environmental reasoning for third and fourth responses. Health problems (f=4), job opportunities for people (f=2), and economic loss (f=1) were coded as anthropocentric moral reasoning. The answers of human-caused forest fires (f=1) and delay in extinguishing the fire (f=1) were coded as non-environmental moral reasoning. These results revealed that most of the participants considered loss of forest areas and biodiversity as the most important eco-centric moral reasoning. Anthropocentric moral reasoning was rated as the second-order issues by considering the health problems and economic reasons. Non-environmental reasoning generally focused on government failure in taking actions on time. All of the participants agreed that the consequences of forest fires affect nature and humans, and environmental issues will become much worse after 20 years. These qualitative data was supported by the responses provided for ASEE. The subdimension of environmental education facilitating transfer of learning had the highest mean (Mean=4.56) and the subdimension of the prevailing socioeconomic model (M=2.45) had the lowest mean. Similar Forest Fire Case the PSTs gave the least attention to socio-economic issues as the focus of environmental education.

Álvarez-García O., Sureda-Negre J., Comas-Forgas R. (2015). Environmental education in pre-service teacher training: A literature review of existing evidence. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(1), 72-85. DOI: 10.1515/jtes-2015-0006 Callicott, J. B. (2013). Thinking like a planet: The land ethic and earth ethic. Oxford Unıversity Press. Higde, E., Oztekin, C., & Sahin, E. (2017). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ awareness, beliefs, values, and behaviors pertinent to climate change. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(3), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1330040 Karpiak, C. P., & Baril, G. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 203-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.12.001 Thompson, P. J. (Ed.). (1997). Environmental education for the 21st century: international and interdisciplinary perspectives. Peter Lang Publishing. Tuncay, B. (2010). Moral reasoning of pre-service science teachers toward local and non-locak environmental problems [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University Tuncay, B., Yılmaz-Tuzun, O., Tuncer-Teksoz, G., (2011). The relationship between environmental moral reaoning and environmental attitudes of pre-service science teachers. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 1(3), 167-178. Pérez-Rodríguez, U., Varela-Losada, M., Alvarez-Lires, F. J., Vega-Marcote, P. (2016).Attitudes of preservice teachers: Design and validation of an attitude scale toward environmental education. Journal of Cleaner Producion.164, 634-641 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.245 Stapp, W. (1969). The concept of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30-31. Varela-Losada, M., Vega-Marcote, P., Perez-Rodriguez, U., & Alvarez-Lires, M. (2016). Going to action? a literature review on educational proposals in formal environmental education. Environmental education research. 22:3, 390-421 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1101751