Next Article in Journal
Implementation of Water-Saving Measures in Hotels in Mallorca
Next Article in Special Issue
The Roles of Interest and Pressure Groups in Developing Sustainable Educational Policies in Turkey
Previous Article in Journal
Proposing a Value Field Model for Predicting Homebuyers’ Purchasing Behavior of Green Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of University Students’ Individual Innovation and Lifelong Learning Trends on Entrepreneurship Orientation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 23
10.3390/su11236878
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Development in Teacher Education in Terms of Being Solution Oriented and Self-Efficacy

by
Figen Akça
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Uludag University, Bursa, 16059, Turkey
Sustainability 2019, 11(23), 6878; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236878
Submission received: 20 September 2019 / Revised: 10 November 2019 / Accepted: 27 November 2019 / Published: 3 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability in Leadership and Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, the correlation between 526 prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development (ESD) and their perceptions of self-efficacy and abilities to focus on solutions was addressed. This descriptive study found that prospective teachers had strong beliefs about ESD. In terms of the “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development”, the prospective teachers who are studying at the faculty of education had stronger beliefs than those enrolled in the Pedagogical Formation Certificate Program. In addition, fourth-year prospective teachers and those perceiving themselves as showing good academic performance had stronger beliefs about ESD. Also, participants’ beliefs about ESD were found to be related to their abilities to focus on solutions and their perceptions of self-efficacy. Additionally, our study found that perceptions of self-efficacy significantly predicts the ability to focus on solutions and beliefs about ESD (29%). One of the limitations of our study is that our findings can be generalized only to a limited extent. Furthermore, further research is needed to validate the predictive variables that have arisen. Finally, longitudinal and experimental research that use qualitative analysis techniques is needed to investigate the implications of the results for professional improvement and to find out what sort of sustainable education practices there are in different education levels.

1. Introduction

In 2002, the United Nations initiated the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) initiative that would cover a decade from 2005 to 2014. ESD seeks to raise awareness in individuals about how to develop a sustainable lifestyle and thus achieve positive transformations in societies in the long term [1]. The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 sustainable development goals aimed both to improve the environment and to provide a way of achieving a better future. Goal number 4 promotes quality education while target number 7 of this goal specifically addresses education for sustainable development [2]. In fact, successful globalization is linked with sustainable development and education for sustainable development [3,4].
ESD is defined as an uninterrupted education that enables individuals to perform actions for sustainability with systematic and innovative thinking abilities and provides them with the necessary cognitive, affective, and psychomotor equipment (such as knowledge, skills, attitudes, values) for them to meet their needs [5]. ESD has seven key characteristics: interdisciplinary and holistic, values-driven, critical thinking and problem-solving, multi-method, participatory decision-making, applicability, and locally relevant [6]. In addition, ESD requires self-confidence, emotional intelligence, responsibility, and systemic thinking [7].
The key role that education can play in enabling people to adopt this new perspective and organize their lifestyles accordingly is highlighted in several international reports, such as Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) and the Johannesburg Declaration (WSSD, 2002) [7]. In particular, the role of universities in ESD is manifested in action research carried out [8]. It is important that students develop new attitudes towards and perceptions of the environment and sustainability problems [9]. The development of key competencies related to ESD is based on both cognitive and non-cognitive tendencies and is questioned in more than one context; it is also multidisciplinary [2,10]. It is concluded that ESD should provide individuals with general competencies as well as “basic competencies” in line with transformational learning concepts. With the integration of formal and non-formal learning environments in higher education, sustainability has become a collective element of the new curriculum [11].
ESD does not require a single learning domain; it requires the integration of multiple learning domains and the interdisciplinary work of individuals. It is thought that the desired change in the values of individuals in terms of sustainable development will lead to a positive change in their behaviors, as well [12,13]. Many studies have emphasized that teaching/learning methods such as research-based learning, discussion, field studies, case studies, and experimental activities are more suitable for ESD than traditional teaching/learning methods [14,15]. Students’ active participation in these processes and their preferences according to their wishes and needs will provide the most appropriate learning environment. Therefore, especially teachers should have sufficient knowledge [16] and positive attitudes [17] for sustainable development.
Beliefs about ESD generally have cognitive, affective, and behavioral components and naturally affect knowledge, actions, and emotions [18]. After three years of interviews with more than 500 people using the Delphi approach, Vare et al. [19] developed a robust list of the components of sustainable education: empathy, innovation, responsibility, participation, futures, criticality, transdisciplinarity, attentiveness, systems, engagement, action, and decisiveness. Education plays a key role in promoting sustainable development and developing people’s capacity to address environmental and developmental problems. Sustainable development will become more qualified if it can be implemented as a behavioral pattern including environmental and ethical values.
Student-centered teaching methods, future-oriented thinking skills, high-level thinking skills, interdisciplinarity, linking local and global problems demonstrated the relationship of teacher competencies with the teaching-learning process and, therefore, with the promotion of education for sustainability in a study with teachers in Spain [20]. In another study, it was determined that the perspectives of faculty members played a decisive role in education for sustainability. The results of the study showed that participation, personal motivation, and competent leadership of the faculty members were necessary for the success of the program with the support of the school administrators. The determination of faculty members and a sense of belongingness to the project are the determining factors. In this sense, the following differences in favor of private schools between public and private schools were noted: practical activities, activities outside the classroom, and a positive perspective on ESD [21]. Cotton et al. [22], in addition to some previous research, has mentioned indications that many faculty members find the language of ESD inaccessible. Mogren and Gericke [23] highlighted the ways to contribute to the long-term transformative characteristics of schools with high levels of ESD. The researchers also focused on how the methods identified by the administrators of schools applying ESD can be used to overcome the barriers to ESD.
A scale for sustainability in educational settings has been developed for primary and secondary school students aged 9–16. In addition to the general socio-demographic characteristics, the scale includes the association of cognitive, affective, behavioral, application, and sustainability competencies with psychological elements [24]. Another study addressed the appropriateness, complex, and controversial meanings and challenges of sustainable development for school students [25]. Based on these findings, it is clear that ESD carries psychosocial elements not only for teachers but also for students, and its complex structure is tried to be revealed.
Self-efficacy can be defined as a perceived capability to perform a target behavior. Boon [26] used a seven-item scale to investigate prospective teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about ESD. It was determined that 97 prospective teachers supported the value and mediating role of education for environmental sustainability and believed that they could incorporate education for sustainability into their teaching methods. The participants stated that their confidence and self-efficacy increased when they aimed to be engaged in sustainability activities.
In one study, awareness training programs were organized to increase self-efficacy perception levels of new employees regarding sustainable education. The results showed that after the training programs there were significant increases in the work performance of the employees and the productivity of the organization [27]. There are also research findings showing that entrepreneurship education increases entrepreneurship self-efficacy and intention for ESD [28].
Solution-oriented individuals are also individuals who can make effective plans for the future and make accurate judgments. The solution-oriented approach emphasizes people should use their internal resources to achieve a positive change [29]. Goals are at the heart of solution-oriented practice as an internal representation of desired situations or outcomes [30]. There is increasing interest in this approach in the literature, but the mechanism of this approach continues to be investigated.
One study aimed to provide experience-based guidance for similar initiatives in sustainability programs worldwide. This guidance aims to define the problem and project-based learning program and the institutional context at the Arizona State University School of Sustainability [31]. Tilbury [32] conducted an extensive study on education and sustainability in the context of globalization. The study shared recommendations and solutions on education for sustainability in 4 continents and 17 countries.
In traditional education settings where students’ attitudes towards sustainable education cannot be addressed effectively, the issue of sustainability is dealt with from a very general point of view. Such competence can be best achieved when it can be transferred to real-life learning settings. Solution-oriented sustainability learning programs create and use such settings [33]. The problem-solving skills of the students towards sustainable education can lead to positive changes not only at the school level but also at the macro level, i.e., in the city, enterprises or public institutions. The modules in the Teaching for a Sustainable World project handbook illustrate how environmental education and development education are related and provide practical assistance to teacher educators who wish to incorporate these key areas into their programs. An intensive expansion program from 1993 to 1994 included workshops at all faculties of education in Australia [34,35]. Numerous studies have been conducted to highlight the importance of ESD and seek educational solutions to environmental problems [1,15,36,37,38,39,40,41].
A sustainable development-oriented education approach, which is an important tool in the transition to a sustainable society structure for the future, has been accepted all over the world, has been reflected in education policies as an action plan, and has been applied directly in many cultures [1]. Within this framework, the three main functions expected from education for sustainable development are to inform, raise awareness, and create behavioral change. Hope and optimism are closely linked to physical and psychological health and have been widely researched in the field of positive psychology. Research has shown that hope is linked to pro-environmental behavior and plays an important role in ESD [42].
Education for sustainable development aims not only to provide individuals with specific knowledge but also to provide them with the necessary skills, values, and a proper perspective [43]. However, decisions need to be made on some issues, such as topics to be covered and materials to be used. Education for sustainable development promotes the active involvement of students in such decision-making processes. The studies conducted to determine teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development are generally qualitative studies conducted with a small number of participants. Also the literature review showed that there is no study examining the association of beliefs about education for sustainable development with the ability to focus on solutions and perceptions of self-efficacy. Hence, studying the relationship between prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development and their perceptions of self-efficacy and abilities to focus on solutions will surely guide us in developing teacher training curricula. It is thought that the results of our study will reveal the attitudes of prospective teachers who will educate future generations towards education for sustainable development and thus will be important in terms of teacher training policies [44].
In light of the above information and opinions, answers to the following research questions were sought:
  • Do prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development differ in terms of the sex variable?
  • Do prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development differ in terms of the education type variable?
  • Do prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development differ in terms of the years at university variable?
  • Do prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development differ in terms of their perceptions of academic achievement?
  • What are the correlations between prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development, their ability to focus on solutions, and their perceptions of self-efficacy?
  • Do prospective teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy predict their ability to focus on solutions and their beliefs about education for sustainable development?

2. Materials and Methods

In the study, the screening model, which is one of the quantitative research methods, was used to determine the attitudes of prospective teachers towards a sustainable environment. This model aims to collect data about the specific characteristics of a group [45]. Necessary permissions were obtained for the application of the scales, and the scale was applied to voluntary prospective teachers. Before the implementation, prospective teachers were briefly informed about ESD since they had not come across the subject throughout their educational life. The scales were applied to the students at the beginning or end of the classes. Some (58) of the initial 584 scales were ignored as they were filled out wrongly, incompletely, or randomly.

2.1. Population

Since 2010, teacher training in Turkey has been offered by faculties of education according to two different programs: undergraduate programs and the pedagogical formation program. Undergraduate programs enroll students who start university after completing their high school education while the pedagogical formation program enrolls those who have completed or are in the fourth year of their undergraduate education. The reason why the prospective teachers attending the pedagogical formation program were also included in our study is that they become high school teachers once they graduate. Having a perspective on ESD is important at the high school stage since high school can be considered as one of the crucial stages in which high school students, who will soon become adults and assume important roles in social life, develop a perspective on sustainable development.
The population of the study consists of prospective teachers who are enrolled in undergraduate programs and the pedagogical formation program at Bursa Uludağ University in the 2018–2019 academic year. The random sampling method was applied, and all prospective teachers were tried to be reached. Thus, the study was conducted with 526 (342 females, 184 males) prospective teachers. Four hundred and thirty-seven undergraduate students and 89 formation program students participated in the study. Of the participants, 76 were in the first year, 45 in the second year, 91 in the third year, 258 in the fourth year, and 56 were graduates.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

In our study, we utilized three scales and one personal information form. The personal information form contained questions about sex, years at university, and education type. It also contained 4-point Likert type items (bad, moderate, good, very good) to evaluate the participants’ perceptions of their academic achievement.

2.2.1. Beliefs about Education for Sustainable Development Scale

Developed by Sağdıç and İnanç [46], the scale consists of 32 5-point Likert-type items (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale also includes three factors: “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development”, “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development”, and “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development”. Confirmatory factor analysis (X = 937,85, df = 457, p = 0; CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.71), discriminant and convergent validity analysis conducted by researchers indicate that the beliefs about education for sustainable development scale is a valid scale to assess teachers’ beliefs. The scale also has sufficient power to reveal possible differences or similarities in the beliefs of teachers and prospective teachers of different branches about education for sustainable development [46]. In this study, as a result of the reliability analysis of the beliefs about education for sustainable development scale and its subscales, Cronbach’s alpha values were found to be 0.91, 0.95, 0.82 and 0.85, respectively.

2.2.2. Academic Self-Efficacy Scale

Developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer in 1981, the scale was adapted into Turkish Yılmaz, Gürçay, and Ekici [47,48]. The scale consists of one subscale and seven 4-point Likert type items (1 = completely describes me, 4 = describes me not at all). The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 7 and the highest score is 28. A high score indicates high self-efficacy. Jerusalem and Schwarzer [48] calculated the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the original scale as 0.87, and Yılmaz, Gürçay, and Ekici [47] calculated the internal consistency coefficient of the scale as 0.79. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha (n = 527) reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.87.

2.2.3. Solution Focused Inventory

The scale was developed by Grant, Cavanagh, Kleitman, Spence, Lakota, and Yu [29]. Validity and reliability studies of the Turkish version of the scale were conducted by Karahan and Hamarta [49]. The inventory consists of twelve 6-point Likert type items. Correlations between the original and Turkish version scores were calculated to determine the linguistic equivalence of the inventory, and correlations were found as 0.92 for the problem disengagement subscale, 0.94 for the goal orientation subscale, and 0.91 for the resource activation subscale. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis conducted to examine the construct validity of the scale, a three-factor construct consisting of 12 items was obtained. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis performed to determine whether this construct fits the sample data showed that the scale had strong goodness of fit. Goodness of fit index values were found to be RMSEA = 0.072 CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.91, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.87. The 16-week test-retest reliability was 0.84. As a result of the Cronbach’s Alpha test for this study, the reliability coefficient was found to be 0.80 for the overall solution-focused inventory.

2.3. Analyzing the Data

The normality values of the data were examined, and it was concluded that the data showed a normal distribution (Table 1). Therefore, parametric t and Anova tests were used in comparative analyses, and multiple linear correlations and regression methods were employed for relational analyses. The differences between the groups in the Anova tests were determined based on the Scheffe test because the number of groups was more than 3 [50].

3. Results

3.1. The Evaluation of the Beliefs of the Teacher Candidates Regarding the Education of Sustainable Development in Terms of a Gender Variable

According to the findings in Table 2, there is a significant difference in favor of female prospective teachers in the subscales of “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” [t (524) = 3.580; p < 0.01] and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” [t (524) = 3.105; p < 0.01]. On the other hand, there is a significant difference in favor of male prospective teachers in the subscale of “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” [t (524) = −2.793; p < 0.01]. When the scale was evaluated in general, there was no significant difference between prospective teachers’ beliefs about sustainable development in terms of the sex variable [t (524) = 0.350; p > 0.05]. The sex variable has a little effect on the “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.024), “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.018), and “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.015) subscales.

3.2. Evaluation of Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs about Education for Sustainable Development in Terms of the Education Type Variable

We examined whether prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development differed in terms of studying at the faculty of education or being enrolled in a pedagogical formation program. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 presents the differences between participants’ beliefs in terms of the education type variable. There is a significant difference in favor of participants studying at the faculty of education in the subscales of “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” [t (524) = 3.207; p < 0.01] and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” [t (524) = 5.391; p < 0.01] while there is a significant difference in favor of participants enrolled in a pedagogical formation program in the subscale of “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” [t (524) = −3.859, p < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the overall scale [t (524) = −0.540, p > 0.05]. The education type variable has little effect on “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.052), “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.019), and “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.027) subscales.

3.3. Evaluation of Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs about Education for Sustainable Development in Terms of the Year at University Variable

The results of ANOVA performed to find out whether prospective teachers’ beliefs about sustainable development differ according to their years at university are given below.
It can be inferred from Table 4 that in the subscale of “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” [F (4-521) = 12.876, ** p < 0.05], there is a significant difference between 1st (M = 3.58) and 2nd (M = 4.12), 3rd (M = 3.98), and 4th-year students (M = 4.28) in favor of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-year students and between 4th-year and 3rd-year students and graduates (M = 3.89) in favor of 4th-year students. Also, in the subscale of “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” [F (4-521) = 3.494, ** p < 0.01], there is a significant difference between 1st and 4th-year students in favor of 4th-year students while in the subscale of “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” [F (4-521) = 4.821, ** p < 0.01], there is a significant difference in favor of 1st-year students. There was no significant difference in the overall scale [F (4-521) = 0.620, p > 0.05]. The year at university variable has little effect on “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.090), “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2= 0.026), “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.035).

3.4. Evaluation of Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs about Education for Sustainable Development in Terms of Their Perceptions of Their Academic Achievement

The table below presents whether prospective teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development differ in terms of their perceptions of their academic achievement.
Table 5 presents the analysis of teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development in terms of their perceptions of their academic achievement. In the subscale of “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” [F (4-521) = 7.550, ** p < 0.05], there is a significant difference between those perceiving themselves as showing bad academic performance (M = 3.28) and those perceiving themselves as showing very good academic performance (M = 3.84) in favor of those perceiving themselves as showing very good academic performance and there is a significant difference between those perceiving themselves as showing moderate academic performance (M = 3.38) and good (M = 3.63) and very good academic performance (M = 3.84) in terms of those perceiving themselves as showing good and very good academic performance. In the subscale of “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” [F (4-521) = 3.494, ** p < 0.01] and in the overall scale [F (4-521) = 3.536, * p < 0.05], there is a significant difference between those perceiving themselves as showing bad academic performance and those perceiving themselves as showing good academic performance in favor of the latter while in the subscale of “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” [F (4-521) = 4.821, ** p < 0.01], there is a significant difference in favor of those perceiving themselves as showing bad academic performance. The variable has little effect on “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.020), “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.026), and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” (Ƞ2 = 0.042).

3.5. The Correlations between Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs about Sustainable Development, Their Ability to Focus on Solution, and Perceptions of Self-Efficacy

A multiple correlations was performed to determine if there is a correlation between prospective teachers’ beliefs about sustainable development, their ability to focus on solutions, and perceptions of self-efficacy.
It can be inferred from Table 6 that there is a strong negative correlation between the ability to focus on solutions and perceptions of self-efficacy (r = −0.53, p < 0.01). A moderately positive correlation was found between the ability to focus on solutions (r = 0.35, p < 0.01) and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” (r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Also, a low positive correlation was found between “beliefs about education for sustainable development and the ability to focus on solutions (r = 0.26, p < 0.01) while a low negative correlation was found between “beliefs about education for sustainable development” and perceptions of self-efficacy (r = −0.22, p < 0.01). In addition, a low negative correlation was found between perceptions of self-efficacy and “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” (r = −0.19, p < 0.01) and beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development” (r = −0.24, p < 0.01). Besides, a negative negligible significant correlation was found between the ability to focus on solutions and “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” (r = −0.09, p < 0.05). Finally, no significant correlation was found between “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” and perceptions of self-efficacy (r = −0.02, p > 0.05).

3.6. Predictive Power of Prospective teachers’ Perceptions of Self-Efficacy on Their Ability to Focus on Solutions and “Beliefs about Education for Sustainable Development”

In this part of our study, a regression analysis was performed on two variables, which, as indicated in the literature review section, may predict the attitudes towards sustainable development.
It can be inferred from Table 7 that perceptions of self-efficacy significantly predicts the ability to focus on solutions and “beliefs about education for sustainable development” (F(523-2) = 104.409, p < 0.01, R = 0.53, R2 = 0.29, Adjusted R2 = 0.283). Therefore, perceptions of self-efficacy account for 29% of “beliefs about education for sustainable development” and the ability to focus on solutions. Seventy-one percent of “beliefs about education for sustainable development” and the ability to focus on solutions is explained by other factors. According to standardized regression coefficients, the order of significance of perceptions of self-efficacy on predicted variables is as follows: the ability to focus on solutions (β = −0.503) and education for sustainable development (β = −0.092). Perceptions of self-efficacy perception are negatively correlated with “beliefs about education for sustainable development” and the ability to focus on solutions. According to the results of the regression analysis, the regression equation that predicts “beliefs about education for sustainable development” and the ability to focus on solutions is as follows: “perception of self-efficacy (–.359x solution-focused inventory score) + (.099 x beliefs about education for sustainable development scale score) + (4.204).”

4. Discussion

In our study, prospective teachers’ scores from the beliefs about education for sustainable development scale are above the average. We can infer from this finding that the prospective teachers who participated in our study have very positive attitudes about raising environmental awareness, equipping individuals with positive attitudes and values, and developing their skills to ensure that appropriate behaviors emerge. This finding indicates that although there is no systematic education for sustainable development in our country, prospective teachers are quite aware of the concept of sustainability. It can be said that this finding is a result of the cultural norm of “being clean and moral” taught through our cultural and religious values.
We also found that female prospective teachers had stronger beliefs about the implementation and limitation of sustainable development. Similarly, in a study conducted by Çimen [51], it was reported that prospective teachers generally had positive attitudes towards the sustainable environment, and female prospective teachers obtained higher scores from the scale. Based on these results, we can argue that female prospective teachers are more hopeful in terms of education for sustainable development and can better foresee the limitations that might arise. On the other hand, some studies did not report any differences between sexes, while some reported differences in favor of male prospective teachers. For example, in their studies, Ilgaz and Eskici [52] found that male prospective teachers scored higher in terms of basic competencies for lifelong learning and beliefs about education for sustainable development.
Another finding that we obtained in the present study is that, when compared to the prospective teachers enrolled in the pedagogical formation program, prospective teachers studying at the faculty of education obtained higher scores from “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development” and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development”. On the other hand, in the subscale of “beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development,” those enrolled in the pedagogical formation program obtained higher scores. As is known, prospective teachers who receive undergraduate education at faculties of education are taught by faculty members who are more familiar with teaching practices in schools. It is, therefore, an expected result that they are more aware of the implementation and limitations of education for sustainable development. Bulut and Çakmak [53] underlined teacher competencies and the effectiveness of social studies programs as the two most important criteria for the formation of a sustainable environment. In another study [54], it was shown how the identified initiatives relate to the development of basic ESD competencies for educators identified by UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) [55]. The findings of the same study showed that experience-based and interdisciplinary learning had a positive effect on learning based on real-life problems related to society and the natural environment. Also the importance of cooperation with colleagues and students was demonstrated in the same study. Another study compared the attitudes of the students of the Faculty of Agriculture and the students of the Department of Psychology towards ESD. The results showed that the students of the Faculty of Agriculture gave more importance to the environment factor, while the students of the Department of Psychology gave more importance to the social aspect of the subject. These findings indicate that students who study agriculture have a pro-environmental attitude while psychology students are more aware of social issues [56]. Based on these findings, a difference can also be expected among prospective teachers of different branches (such as science teacher, social studies teacher) in our country.
In our study, we found a significant difference between the 1st and 4th-year students in favor of the 4th-year students with regards to “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development” and “beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development.” This finding is promising in that the curricula of faculties of education are successful at providing the students with positive attitudes towards ESD. In one study, there was no significant difference between the beliefs of prospective science teachers in different years at university about education for sustainable development while there was a significant difference between the 1st-year and 4th-year prospective classroom teachers [51].
According to another finding from our study, the perception of academic achievement is important in evaluating the adequacy of education for sustainable. Summers et al. [17] asked teachers about their views on sustainable development. The teachers stated that they found their schools inadequate in terms of the implementation of sustainable development policies but found themselves sufficient and competent to mentor their students in this regard.
A strong negative correlation was found between the ability to focus on solutions and perceptions of self-efficacy, which are two intermediate variables of our study. In other words, as an individual’s ability to focus on solutions increases, his/her perception of self-efficacy decreases. Self-efficacy is not related to the competencies of an individual, but to his/her belief in his/her skills [57]. The relationship between self-efficacy and the ability to focus on solutions are two important factors that support each other. In other words, even if the self-efficacy of the individual is high, the individual may not see his/her ability to focus on solutions adequate. The studies examining the correlation between these two variables are quite recent and very few [58].
In our study, negative low-level significant correlations were found between perceptions of self-efficacy and “beliefs about the implementation of sustainable development" and "beliefs about the limitation of sustainable development”. A negative negligible significant correlation was found between the ability to focus on solutions and beliefs about the adequacy of education for sustainable development. Our perception of self-efficacy is not only related to our confidence in our own internal resources and but also gives us the necessary information for a realistic assessment of the situation. This is an expected result in our country where the quality of education is often discussed and there is widespread hopelessness about the adequacy of the education system. Because, even if a teacher, who thinks that sustainable education cannot be implemented positively because of the important deficiencies in education in our country, has high self-efficacy, he/she will not believe that he/she has the power to control the result. The results of a study of a moderated mediation model where self-efficacy in classroom management predicts emotional exhaustion [59] gives us an idea of teachers’ beliefs in the sustainability of activities. In another study, it was reported that prospective teachers are pessimistic, that they should be exposed to various school environments during the practice and that they should get context-related support from the stakeholders to improve their professional skills and to act in line with the ESD principles [60].
In our study, a significant positive correlation was found between beliefs about ESD and the ability to focus on solutions. In other words, solution-focused prospective teachers also had strong beliefs about education for sustainable development. Indeed, as stated in the research on twelve key competencies, which are crucial for sustainable development [61], the most important of these are systematic thinking, predictive thinking, and critical thinking. This finding is consistent with the findings in our study. Likewise, a solution-oriented teacher will be able to see the problems of the education system and be able to focus on their solution. Also, a teacher who is aware of the limitations makes the best use of resources in the school environment. This indicates that the teacher also has a positive personality trait for education for sustainable development.
Another finding consistent with the above finding is that there is a moderate positive correlation between the ability to focus on solutions and beliefs about the implementation and limitation of ESD. This result is quite significant in that the increase in the quality of education through effective use of resources will only be possible with a solution-oriented perspective. If prospective teachers believe that sustainable education practices will be implemented in the school environment, they will be able to instill this idea into their students. This finding of our study is consistent with the findings of Mogren and Gericke [23]. The researchers showed that hope is linked to pro-environmental behaviors and plays an important role in ESD. Teachers and young people are the most powerful representatives of a positive socio-ecological future. They report the strongest feelings about ESD and want to assume responsibilities for ESD [42].
Perceptions of self-efficacy have been found to significantly predict the ability to focus on solutions and beliefs about EDS. Therefore, perceptions of self-efficacy account for 29% of “beliefs about education for sustainable development” and the ability to focus on solutions. According to standardized regression coefficients, the order of significance of perceptions of self-efficacy on predicted variables is the ability to focus on solutions and perceptions of self-efficacy. Perceptions of self-efficacy are negatively correlated with beliefs about education for sustainable development and the ability to focus on solutions. This negative correlation between perceptions of self-efficacy and beliefs about education for sustainable development is also consistent with one study where teachers perceived curriculum, class size, and lack of teaching material as a barrier to education for sustainable development [7]. In other words, these barriers mean a lack of external factors that determine self-efficacy. Since teachers think that they lack the conditions that support their self-efficacy despite their positive beliefs about education for sustainable development, a result that supports the findings of our research emerges. The applicability of education for sustainable development, especially in educational settings, is based on three conditions: that educational settings must contain certain pedagogical characteristics, that ESD must be developed to be implemented in educational settings, and that institutions must adopt positive attitudes towards ESD [62]. In this case, it can be said that prospective teachers do not expect ESD to take place without these elements that will determine their self-efficacy, and they do not find themselves sufficient about ESD. Dai and Hwang [63] examined the participants of the bamboo craft course according to the ESD assessment criteria. It has been determined that students with self-learning skills were more confident in their craft and in responding to cultural sustainability challenges. This study addresses three types of factors that influence whether intentions can be turned into action: intentions themselves (i.e., authenticity and perceived control), contextual barriers and supports (i.e., task difficulty, regulations, and incentives), and personal characteristics (such as habits). Education is likely to affect each of these factors [64]. The more pedagogical variables a teacher has (for example, inclusive students, lesson planning, linking with previous learning, school culture, etc.), the more positive his/her educational environment will be [14,65].
One of the important limitations of our study was that since ESD is little known in our country, respondents had difficulties in understanding the questions in the scales. Before the scales were administered, a pilot implementation was conducted to assess the intelligibility of the questions. Before the application, brief information about ESD was given, and the respondents’ questions were answered. Also, it can be said that the findings obtained in our study are limited to prospective teachers studying in Bursa/Turkey.
Based on all these results, we can say that the prospective teachers, who we see as the future teachers, have strong beliefs about education for sustainable development, and this is affected by their self-efficacy levels and ability to focus on solutions. For this reason, providing the students of especially faculties of education with the ability to focus on solutions during their university education and emphasizing the importance of lifelong learning [66] are likely to generate positive results [67,68]. Karahan [69] underlines the importance of increasing the quality of higher education for sustainable development. Also, to strengthen the self-efficacy perceptions of prospective teachers, it would be appropriate to take measures to increase their awareness. An important aspect of sustainability science is the involvement of external actors in the research process to combine the best available information, reconcile values and preferences, and thus generate solutions to problems. Therefore, interdisciplinary, community-based, and interactive research approaches are proposed as appropriate instruments both for identifying the solutions to real-world problems and fulfilling the goals of sustainability science [70].

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Öztürk, M. Sürdürülebilir gelişme odakli eğitim: Kuramsal çerçeve, tarihsel gelişim ve uygulamaya dönük öneriler. Elem. Educ. Online 2017, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Giangrande, N.; White, R.M.; East, M.; Jackson, R.; Clarke, T.; Coste, M.S.; Penha-Lopes, G. A competency framework to assess and activate education for sustainable development: Addressing the UN sustainable development goals 4.7 challenge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Gough, A. Not for want of trying: Strategies for re-orienting teacher education for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). In Proceedings of the 12th UNESCO-APEID International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 March 2009; pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  4. Little, A.W.; Green, A. Successful globalisation, education and sustainable development. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2009, 29, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mula, I.; Tilbury, D. A United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) What Difference will it Make? J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 3, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. López-Alcarria, A.; Olivares-Vicente, A.; Poza-Vilches, F. A systematic review of the use of agile methodologies in education to foster sustainability competencies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Sagdic, A.; Sahin, E. An Assessment of Turkish Elementary Teachers in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development. Int. Electron. J. Environ. Educ. 2016, 6, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tormey, R.; Liddy, M.; Maguire, H.; McCloat, A. Working in the action/research nexus for education for sustainable development: Two case studies from Ireland. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 428–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lozano, R.; Lozano, F.J.; Mulder, K.; Huisingh, D.; Waas, T. Advancing Higher Education for Sustainable Development: International insights and critical reflections. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wiek, A.; Bernstein, M.J.; Foley, R.W.; Cohen, M.; Forrest, N.; Kuzdas, C.; Kay, B.; Withycombe Keeler, L. Operationalizing Competencies in Higher Education for Sustainable Development. In Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development; Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., Thomas, I., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 241–260. [Google Scholar]
  11. Barth, M.; Godemann, J.; Rieckmann, M.; Stoltenberg, U. Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2007, 8, 416–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Örücü, M.Ç. Sürdürülebilir Eğitimde Yükseköğretimin ve Psikolojik Danışman Eğitiminin Rolü ve Önemi. EKEV Akad. Derg. 2015, 63, 231–242. [Google Scholar]
  13. Leiserowitz, A.A.; Kates, R.W.; Parris, T.M. Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 413–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Corney, G.; Reid, A. Student teachers learning about subject matter and pedagogy in education for sustainable development. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bascopé, M.; Perasso, P.; Reiss, K. Systematic review of education for sustainable development at an early stage: Cornerstones and pedagogical approaches for teacher professional development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Winter, C.; Firth, R. Knowledge about education for sustainable development: Four case studies of student teachers in English secondary schools. J. Educ. Teach. 2007, 33, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Summers, M.; Childs, A.; Corney, G. Education for sustainable development in initial teacher training: Issues for interdisciplinary collaboration. Environ. Educ. Res. 2005, 11, 623–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Johnson, K.E.; Ma, P. Understanding Language Teaching: Reasoning in Action; Heinle & Heinle Boston: Boston, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  19. Vare, P.; Arro, G.; de Hamer, A.; Del Gobbo, G.; de Vries, G.; Farioli, F.; Kadji-Beltran, C.; Kangur, M.; Mayer, M.; Millican, R.; et al. Devising a competence-based training program for educators of sustainable development: Lessons learned. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Poza-Vilches, F.; López-Alcarria, A.; Mazuecos-Ciarra, N. A professional competences’ diagnosis in education for sustainability: A case study from the Standpoint of the Education Guidance Service (EGS) in the Spanish Context. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Agirreazkuenaga, L. Embedding Sustainable Development Goals in Education. Teachers’ Perspective about Education for Sustainability in the Basque Autonomous Community. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Cotton, D.R.E.; Warren, M.F.; Maiboroda, O.; Bailey, I. Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: A study of lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 579–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mogren, A.; Gericke, N. School Leaders’ Experiences of Implementing Education for Sustainable Development—Anchoring the Transformative Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Waltner, E.M.; Rieß, W.; Mischo, C. Development and validation of an instrument for measuring student sustainability competencies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Kang, W. Perceived barriers to implementing education for sustainable development among Korean teachers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Boon, H. Beliefs and education for sustainability in rural and regional Australia. Educ. Rural Aust. 2011, 21, 37–54. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cheah, S.; Li, S.; Ho, Y.P. Mutual Support, Role Breadth Self-Efficacy, and Sustainable Job Performance of Workers in Young Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Asimakopoulos, G.; Hern, V.; Miguel, J.P. Entrepreneurial Intention of Engineering Students: The Role of Social Norms and Entrepreneurial Self-E ffi cacy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Grant, A.M.; Cavanagh, M.J.; Kleitman, S.; Spence, G.; Lakota, M.; Yu, N. Development and validation of the solution-focused inventory. J. Posit. Psychol. 2012, 7, 334–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Austin, J.T.; Vancouver, J.B. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 120, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wiek, A.; Xiong, A.; Brundiers, K.; Van Der Leeuw, S. Integrating problem and project-based learning into sustainability programs: A case study on the school of sustainability at Arizona state university. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2014, 15, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tilbury, D. Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global Challenge; IUCN Commission on Education and Communication: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wiek, A.; Kay, B. Learning while transforming: Solution-oriented learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 16, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fien, J. Teaching for a sustainable world: The environmental and development education project for teacher education. Environ. Educ. Res. 1995, 1, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Demirel, Z.M.; Sungur, S. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınmaya Yönelik Tutum Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2018, 19, 1619–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yapıcı, M. Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve eğitim. AKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2003, 5, 223–229. [Google Scholar]
  37. Corney, G. Education for sustainable development: An empirical study of the tensions and challenges faced by geography student teachers. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 2006, 15, 224–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Corney, G. Student geography teachers’ pre-conceptions about teaching environmental topics. Environ. Educ. Res. 2000, 6, 313–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Beringer, A.; Adomßent, M. Sustainable university research and development: Inspecting sustainability in higher education research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 607–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mogensen, F.; Schnack, K. The action competence approach and the new discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environ. Educ. Res. 2010, 16, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kopnina, H. Education for sustainable development (ESD): The turn away from environment in environmental education? Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 699–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grund, J.; Brock, A. Why we should empty Pandora’s box to create a sustainable future: Hope, sustainability and its implications for education. Sustainability 2019, 11, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Hopkins, C.; McKeown, R. Education for sustainable development: An international perspective. In Education and sustainability: Responding to the global challenge; IUCN’s Commission on Education and Communication (CEC): Gland, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sperling, M.; DiPardo, A. Taking stock. Res. Teach. Engl. 2006, 41, 133–135. [Google Scholar]
  45. Büyüköztürk, Ş.; Çakmak, E.K.; Akgün, Ö.E.; Karadeniz, Ş.; Demirel, F.; Karadeniz, Ş.; Demirel, F. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, 23th ed.; Pegem Akademi: Konak, Turkey, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sağdıç, A.; Şahin, E. Sürdürülebilir kalkınma eğitimine yönelik inançlar: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD) 2015, 16, 161–180. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yılmaz, M.; Gürçay, D.; Ekici, G. Akademik özyeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2007, 33, 253–259. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jerusalem, M.; Schwarzer, R. Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 1992; pp. 195–213. [Google Scholar]
  49. Karahan, F.Ş.; Hamarta, E. Çözüm odaklı envanter: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online 2015, 14, 757–769. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kayrї, M. Araştırmalarda gruplar arası farkın belїrlenmesїne yönelїk çoklu karşılaştırma (Post-Hoc Teknїklerї). Fırat Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 2009, 19, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
  51. Çimen, H.; Benzer, S. Fen Bilgisi ve Sınıf Öğretmen Adaylarının Sürdürülebilir Çevreye Yönelik Tutumlarının İncelenmesi. İnsan ve İnsan 2019, 6, 525–542. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ilgaz, G.; Eskici, M. Examination of teacher candidates’ lifelong learning competence and basic motivation resources as parts of sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 11, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Bulut, B.; Çakmak, Z. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Eğitimi ve Öğretim Programlarına Yansımaları. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi 2018, 7, 2680–2697. [Google Scholar]
  54. Falkenberg, T.; Babiuk, G. The status of education for sustainability in initial teacher education programmes: A Canadian case study. Int. J. Sustain. Higher Educ. 2014, 15, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Dicke, T.; Marsh, H.W.; Parker, P.D.; Kunter, M.; Schmeck, A.; Leutner, D. Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 106, 569–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Atmaca, Ç. Effects of Contextual Factors on ESD in Teacher Education. Discourse Commun. Sustain. Educ. 2018, 8, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Rieckmann, M. Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 2012, 44, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wilhelm, S.; Förster, R.; Zimmermann, A.B. Implementing competence orientation: Towards constructively aligned education for sustainable development in university-level teaching-and-learning. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Dai, Y.; Hwang, S.H. Technique, creativity, and sustainability of bamboo craft courses: Teaching educational practices for sustainable development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Arbuthnott, K.D. Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Murley, L.D.; Gandy, S.K.; Huss, J.M. Teacher candidates research, teach, and learn in the nation’s first net zero school. J. Environ. Educ. 2017, 48, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Poyraz, H.; Titrek, O. Türkiye’de hayat boyu öğrenmenin geliştirilmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2013, 13, 115–131. [Google Scholar]
  63. Karahan, M. Yükseköğretim kurumları kalite yeterliliklerinin öğrenci memnuniyeti ve sürdürülebilirlik açısından incelenmesi: İnönü üniversitesi Malatya MYO uygulaması. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2013, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sims, L.; Falkenberg, T. Developing Competencies for Education for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Canadian Faculties of Education. Int. J. High. Educ. 2013, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Biasuttı, M. An intensive programme on education for sustainable development: The participants’ experience. Environ. Educ. Res. 2015, 21, 734–752. [Google Scholar]
  67. Biasuttı, M.; Frate, S. A validity and reliability study of the attitudes toward sustainable development scale. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 214–230. [Google Scholar]
  68. Biasutti, M.; Makrakis, V.; Concina, E.; Frate, S. Educating academic staff to reorient curricula in ESD. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pajares, F. Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-Efficacy; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bingöl, T.Y.; Akın, A. Çözüm Odaklı Kısa Süreli Yaklaşıma Dayalı Grup Rehberliği Programının Öz-yeterlik İnancına Etkisi. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 2015, 8, 321–340. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, normality and cronbach alpha results of variables.
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, normality and cronbach alpha results of variables.
ScalesThe Education of Sustainable DevelopmentBeliefs Regarding ImplementationsBeliefs Regarding LimitationsBeliefs Regarding AdequacySolution FocusedSelf-Efficacy Perception
M3.284.073.502.564.222.36
Std. deviation0.510.820.781.060.770.55
Skewness0.125−0.868−0.2890.292−0.4180.160
Kurtosis−0.0950.822−0.133−0.590−0.034−0.331
Cronbach’s α0.910.950.820.850.800.87
Table
Table 2. T-test results of the belief scale on the education of sustainable development regarding a gender variable.
Table 2. T-test results of the belief scale on the education of sustainable development regarding a gender variable.
The Scale and Sub-DimensionGendernMSDdftpȠ2
The Education of Sustainable DevelopmentFemale3423.290.499265240.350726
Male1843.270.52525
Beliefs regarding implementationsFemale3424.160.793365243.5800 **0.024
Male1843.900.83885
Beliefs regarding limitationsFemale3423.580.769785243.1050.002 **0.018
Male1843.360.78701
Beliefs regarding adequacyFemale3422.471.03819524−2.7930.005 **0.015
Male1842.741.08815
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 means (M), standard deviations (SD), degree of freedom (df).
Table
Table 3. T-test results of the beliefs scale regarding the education of sustainable development in terms of teaching type.
Table 3. T-test results of the beliefs scale regarding the education of sustainable development in terms of teaching type.
The Scale and Sub-DimensionsDepartmentnMSDdftpȠ2
The Education of Sustainable DevelopmentUndergraduate4373.280.51524−0.5400.589
Formation893.310.51
Beliefs regarding implementationsUndergraduate4374.150.785245.3910 **0.052
Formation893.650.89
Beliefs regarding limitationsUndergraduate4373.550.775243.2070.001 **0.019
Formation893.260.78
Beliefs regarding adequacyUndergraduate4372.481.05524−3.8590 **0.027
Formation892.951.03
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 means (M), standard deviations (SD), degree of freedom (df).
Table
Table 4. The Anova results of the beliefs scale regarding the education of sustainable development in terms of grade variable.
Table 4. The Anova results of the beliefs scale regarding the education of sustainable development in terms of grade variable.
The Scale and Sub-DimensionsGradenMSDSVSSdfMSfpDifferenceȠ2
The Education of Sustainable Development 1. Grade763.220.44BG0.64240.1610.6200.468
2. Grade453.260.44WG134.8765210.259
3. Grade913.260.56TS135.518525
4. Grade2583.310.52
Graduate563.330.49
Beliefs regarding implementations1. Grade763.580.83BG31.64947.91212.876 **01-20.090
2. Grade454.120.70WG320.154521.6141-3
3. Grade913.980.86TS351.802525 1-4
4. Grade2584.280.743-4
Graduate563.890.874-M
Beliefs regarding limitations 1. Grade763.340.72BG8.39142.0983.494 **0.0081-40.026
2. Grade453.300.78WG312.8225210.600
3. Grade913.460.82TS321.212525
4. Grade2583.620.77
Graduate563.380.78
Beliefs regarding adequacy1. Grade762.910.81BG21.16445.2914.821 **0.0011-40.035
2. Grade452.590.98WG571.7635211.097
3. Grade912.581.05TS592.927525
4. Grade2582.391.12
Graduate562.831.05
means (M), standard deviations (SD), source of variance (SV), sum of square (SS), degree of freedom (df), mean square (MS), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, between-groups (BG), within-groups (WG), totally (T).
Table
Table 5. Anova results of the beliefs scale regarding the education of sustainable developments in terms of success perception variable.
Table 5. Anova results of the beliefs scale regarding the education of sustainable developments in terms of success perception variable.
The Scale and Sub-DimensionsDegree nMSDSVSSdfMSfpDifference Ƞ2
The Education Sustainable DevelopmentA. Bad353.060.54BG2.69930.9003.536 *0.015A-C0.020
B. Medium2613.270.52WG132.8195220.254
C. Good1953.350.46T135.518525
D. Very Good353.280.57
Beliefs regarding implementationsA. Bad353.750.86BG9.12433.0414.633 **0.003A-C0.026
B. Medium2614.000.79WG342.6795220.656
C. Good1954.200.82T351.802525
D. Very Good354.220.83
Beliefs regarding limitationsA. Bad353.280.78BG13.35934.4537.550 **0A-D0.042
B. Medium2613.380.78WG307.8535220.590B-C
C. Good1953.640.76T321.212525 B-D
D. Very Good353.850.78
Beliefs regarding adequacyA. Bad352.621.02BG7.01632.3392.0840.101--
B. Medium2612.621.08WG585.9115221.122
C. Good1952.541.05T592.927525
D. Very Good352.150.99
means (M), standard deviations (SD), source of variance (SV), sum of square (SS), degree of freedom (df), mean square (MS), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, between-groups (BG), within-groups (WG), Totally (T).
Table
Table 6. Multilinear correlation results of the solution-focused, self-efficacy perception and sustainable development education beliefs and sub-dimensions.
Table 6. Multilinear correlation results of the solution-focused, self-efficacy perception and sustainable development education beliefs and sub-dimensions.
Scales1.1.1.1.2.1.3.23.
1.The Education of sustainable development 0.42 **0.23 **0.53 **0.26 **−0.22 **
1.1. Beliefs regarding implementations 0.37 **−0.270.35 **−0.19 **
1.2.Beliefs regarding limitations −0.41 *0.30 *−0.24 **
1.3.Beliefs regarding adequacy −0.09 *−0.02
2.Solution Focused −0.53 **
3.Self-efficacy perception
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 7. Self-Efficacy perception predicting being solution-focused and the education of sustainable development.
Table 7. Self-Efficacy perception predicting being solution-focused and the education of sustainable development.
Self-EfficacynBSHBβtp
Stable 4.2040.154 27.2240
Solution Focused Inventory525−0.3590.027−0.503−13.1150
Sustainable Development E.525−0.0990.041−0.092−2.3900.017
n = 525, R = 0.53, R2 = 0.29, Adjusted R2 = 0.283, F = 104.409, p < 0.01.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akça, F. Sustainable Development in Teacher Education in Terms of Being Solution Oriented and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236878

AMA Style

Akça F. Sustainable Development in Teacher Education in Terms of Being Solution Oriented and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability. 2019; 11(23):6878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236878

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akça, Figen. 2019. "Sustainable Development in Teacher Education in Terms of Being Solution Oriented and Self-Efficacy" Sustainability 11, no. 23: 6878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236878

APA Style

Akça, F. (2019). Sustainable Development in Teacher Education in Terms of Being Solution Oriented and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability, 11(23), 6878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236878

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop