Claims

Experimental-group participants named far more varied environmental issues and gave more detailed answers than control-group participants

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In the issues/problems category, experimental-group participants emphasized 23 different environmental issues/problems with high frequency, while the control group emphasized four different issues. → Derman et al. 2016

Evidence

Derman et al. 2016

Aysegul Derman, Elvan Sahin, Esme Hacieminoglu. (2016). Does Outdoor Education Make any Difference in Environmental Literacy of Pre-service Classroom Teachers? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION, 11(15), 8491-8506. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Content analysis of the EEAES answers (Table 8 lists frequencies, e.g., domestic waste 32, recycling 31, global warming 21 in the experimental group). The article also states experimental participants "gave more detailed, ex tensive and explanatory answers" while control answers were short and superficial.

"the participants in the experimental group in their statements emphasized on 23 different environmental issues/problems with a high frequency, while the control group emphasized on four different environmental issues/problems with a considerable frequency compared to the experimental group."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.