International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1308-9501

Original article | International Journal of Educational Researchers 2012, Vol. 3(1) 33-45

Community And Nature As Curriculum: A Case Study Of An Outdoor Environmental Education Project

Şükran YALÇIN ÖZDİLEK , Hasan Göksel ÖZDİLEK, Emel OKUR & Mustafa Yunus ERYAMAN

pp. 33 - 45   |  Manu. Number: ijers.2012.003

Published online: March 01, 2012  |   Number of Views: 208  |  Number of Download: 740


Improvement of awareness and positive attitudes towards the environment is certainly challenging, but not impossible. Programs specifically designed towards the raising of environmental awareness are called for in tackling such challenges. This paper describes the concept, content and application of an outdoor environmental education project that is implemented mostly in nature and supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) in 2008 and 2009. The program for the project was prepared by taking into consideration basic principles of ecology and experimental design. Training activities forming the project were carried out in and around various districts (counties) in the province of Canakkale namely; Can, Ezine, Bayramic, Eceabat and Bozcaada. Canakkale’s natural features (flora, fauna, geology, geomorphology), and anthropogenic, social and cultural richness were used as examples. The education was conducted interactively. In keeping with the aim and scope of the project, participants were introduced to and made aware of the need for conservation in these fields. Additionally, it was intended that ecological knowledge would be gained and absorbed by the target group which would result in increased environmental awareness. Activities were intended to be practical rather than theoretical and performed completely in the field. All participants actively joined in the activities. The project activities included qualitative as well as quantitative observation, problem-based tasks, along with brain storming within a learner-centered free-thinking atmosphere, with the aim of achieving an idea-yielding, capacity-building, synthetic application - considered to be the most advanced level of the learning process. The knowledge gained was therefore expected to be used by participants in their future lives. During the activities, the ecological point of view was adopted, yet human-centered environmental awareness was also explained wherever necessary. One of the positive feedbacks of this project was some participants’ contacting of their trainers in order to get additional information on a particular subject after the conclusion of the field applications. One of the negative outputs of this project was the reproach of participants concerning difficulties in remembering their learning due to the intensity of the program. The result of this project is expected to be applied over a larger area with a corresponding training program aimed at contributing towards the protection of nature.


Keywords: outdoor education, environmental education, design experiment, ecology

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
OZDILEK, S.Y., OZDILEK, H.G., OKUR, E. & ERYAMAN, M.Y. (2012). Community And Nature As Curriculum: A Case Study Of An Outdoor Environmental Education Project. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 3(1), 33-45.

OZDILEK, S., OZDILEK, H., OKUR, E. and ERYAMAN, M. (2012). Community And Nature As Curriculum: A Case Study Of An Outdoor Environmental Education Project. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 3(1), pp. 33-45.

Chicago 16th edition
OZDILEK, Sukran YALCIN, Hasan Goksel OZDILEK, Emel OKUR and Mustafa Yunus ERYAMAN (2012). "Community And Nature As Curriculum: A Case Study Of An Outdoor Environmental Education Project". International Journal of Educational Researchers 3 (1):33-45.

  1. Booth, P.R., Sinker, C.A. (1979). The Teaching Ecology in Schools. Journal of BiologicalEducation, 13(4): 261-66 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowen, G. Michael, R., Wolff M. (2007). The Practice of Field Ecology: Insights for Science Education. Research of Science Education, 37: 171- 187. [Google Scholar]
  3. Evans M. McK. (1998). Children Can Make a Difference: Using a Problem Solving, Action Oriented Approach to Environmental    Education.    New    Horizons    for    Learning.    Available    at: (accesssed 13 September 2010). [Google Scholar]
  4. Hale M. (1986). Approaches to ecology teaching: The educational potential of the local environment. Journal of Biological Education, 20 (3): 179-84. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hama, A.M., Sansone, A., Seitz, J., Stötrer, M. (2006). Headwater Resources and Headwater Hazards: Perspectives from Environmental Education. Case Study Galtür, Austria. In: Environmental Role of Wetlands in Headwaters, 181-206..Krecek, J. and Haigh, M. S (editors) Springer. 354 p. [Google Scholar]
  6. Karasar, N.(2003). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara [Google Scholar]
  7. Heilman, E.E. (2007). (Dis)locating Imaginative and Ethical Aims of Global Education. 83-104. Roth K and Gur-Zeev, I. (editors). Education in the Era of Globalization (Volume 16). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 249 p. [Google Scholar]
  8. Holling, C. S. (1998). Two cultures of ecology, Conservation Ecology, Available at: (accessed 13 September 2010). [Google Scholar]
  9. Karabacak, E. (2002). Ağı Dağı (B1 Çanakkale) Çevresinin Florası. ÇOMU Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi. [Google Scholar]
  10. Korfiatis, K. J. (2005). Environmental education and the science of ecology: exploration of an uneasy relationship. Environmental Education Research, 11(2): 235 - 248. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lidstone, J. and Williams, M. (2006). Researchig change and changing research in geographical education. Lidstone, J. and Williams, M. (editors). Geographical Education in a Changing World. Past Experiences, Current Trends and Future Challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 1-18pp., 250 pages total. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lockman, K. L. (2006). The development, pilot, and evaluation of an on-line course titled nres 410/610 teaching about the environment outdoors. Master of Science Natural Resources environmental Education and Interpretation College of Natural Resources University of Wisconsin. [Google Scholar]
  14. Maurer, B. A. (1999). (Ed.). Ecological complexity: the macroscopicperspective. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nikel, J. and Reid, A. (2006). The role of responsibility in making sense of education for sustainable development: notes from a tri-country study of student teachers’ understanding(s) of education, sustainable development and ESD In Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung Aktüelle Forschungsfelder und -ansatze. RieP, Werner and Apel Heino (Editors), VS Verlag für Sozial Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pages 51-67, total 200 pages. [Google Scholar]
  16. O'Donoghue, T. and Punch, K. (2004). Qualitative dducational research in action: doing and reflecting. RoutledgeFalmer pub. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ministery of Eductaion, Secondary School Programs, 2011b,, 02.06.2011. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ministery of Eductaion, Primary School Programs, 2011a,, 20.09.2011. [Google Scholar]
  19. UNESCO (1977) International Conference on Environmental Eductaion, Final Report, Tbilisi 14-26 October 1977, 1977.pdf, 20.09.2011. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rickinson, M. (2006) Researching and understanding environmnetal learning: hopes for the next 10 years. Environmntal Eductaion Research, Vol 12, No 3-4, pp 445-457. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003) Design Experiments in Research. Eductaional Research, 32 (1), p 9-13. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stufflebem, Daniel L., The CIPP Model for Evaluation, in International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, Part I (Ed. Thomas Kellagan, Daniel L. Stufflebeam, Lori A. Wingate). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  23. Storksdieck, M., Ellenbogen, K., Heimlich, E. J. (2005). Changing minds? Reassessing outcomes in free- choice environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 11 (3), 353- 369. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tilbury, Daniella (1995). Environmnetal education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmnetal eduvation in the 1990s. Environmnetal Education Research, Volume 1, Issue 2, 195-212. [Google Scholar]
  25. Okur, E., Yalcin-Ozdilek, S., Sahin, C. (2011) The Common Methods Used In Bıodıversıty Educatıon By Prımary School Teachers (Çanakkale, Turkey). Journal of Theory and Practice in Eductaion, 7    (1),    142-    159. svozdilek csahin.pdf, 20.09.2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lugg, Alison& Slattery, Deirdre. Use of national park for outdoor environmental education: An Australian case study. Journal of Adventure Education& Outdoor Learning, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 77-92,    2003.,21.09.2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Moseley, C., Reinke, K., Bookout, V. (2002) The effect of teaching outdoor environmental eductaion on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward self-efficasy and outcome expectancy. The Journal of Environmental Eductaion, 34 (1), 9-15. 1&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=272341311&exp=09-19- 2016&scaling=FULL&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1316644246&clientId=8119, 22.09.2011. [Google Scholar]