Environmental Education Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceer20

Perceptions of the sustainable development goals:

a Q-methodology study with Turkish preservice
teachers

Halil Cokcaliskan, Hasan Zuhtu Okulu & Alper Yorulmaz

To cite this article: Halil Cokcaliskan, Hasan Zuhtu Okulu & Alper Yorulmaz (30 Jan 2024):
Perceptions of the sustainable development goals: a Q-methodology study with Turkish
preservice teachers, Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2309589

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2309589

Published online: 30 Jan 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 197

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Environmental Education Research
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2309589

Perceptions of the sustainable development goals: a

Q-methodology study with Turkish preservice teachers
Halil Cokcaliskana , Hasan Zuhtu Okulub and Alper Yorulmaza
Primary Teacher Education Department, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey; bScience Education
a

Department, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study identified preservice teachers’ perceptions toward the Received 23 December
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The study group comprised 22 2022
Turkish preservice primary school teachers. The Q-methodology was Accepted 8 January 2024
adopted, the statements of which concerned the 17 SDGs. The data KEYWORDS
analysis revealed two main perspectives: the prioritization of basic human Sustainable development
needs and the prioritization of future human needs. As a common per- goals; Q-methodology;
ception, preservice teachers placed a higher priority on peace, justice, preservice teachers;
and strong institutions, no poverty, and quality education than on any perception; quality
of the other SDGs. The results shed light on how preservice teachers education
perceive the SDGs. Different perspectives of preservice teachers on the
SDGs may influence their future teaching practice. This study highlights
the importance of considering different perspectives among preservice
teachers to ensure the effective implementation of SDGs in education.

Introduction
The environmental degradation caused, among other factors, by the Industrial Revolution and
the demand for luxury items is a prominent issue (Yadav et al. 2022). The booming global
population, which was 3 billion in 1960 and 7.7 billion in 2020 (World Bank 2022), adds to
these factors. Therefore, the reduction of the impact of environmental issues has become a
global endeavor. For the world population to live harmoniously, on September 25, 2015, the
UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations 2015). In line with SDGs, many countries
have adopted initiatives to equip students through school programs with the necessary knowl-
edge and competencies to deal with complex environmental and sustainability issues (Kopnina
2020; Malandrakis et al. 2019). Accordingly, many countries, including Turkey (Council of Higher
Education 2018), have integrated SDG content into their undergraduate education (Alcántara-Rubio
et al. 2022; Leal Filho et al. 2021).
The cornerstone of the 17 SDGs set by the United Nations (2015) is ensuring peace and
prosperity for the people and the planet. The 17 SDGs were designed as compasses for aligning
countries’ plans with their global commitments by 2030 (Winkel et al. 2019). These goals are
rooted in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Bebbington and Unerman 2018). The
SDGs differ from the MDGs in that they emphasize broader participation by both developed

CONTACT Halil Cokcaliskan hcokcaliskan@mu.edu.tr Primary Teacher Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University,
Mugla, Turkey.
© 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

and developing countries and address the economic, social, and environmental aspects of
sustainability in multiple ways (Winkel et al. 2019). The SDGs encompass economic, social, and
environmental goals in a holistic structure rather than as separate components (Fuso Nerini
et al. 2019). Nilsson, Griggs, and Visbeck (2016) illustrated the interconnectedness of the SDGs
by citing how education interventions for girls (Goal 4: Quality Education) in southern Africa
would improve maternal health (part of Goal 3: Good health and Well-Being) and contribute
to poverty eradication (Goal 1: No Poverty), gender equality (Goal 5), and economic growth
(Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth) locally. The SDGs focus on ensuring human
well-being, economic development, and environmental protection by addressing society’s chal-
lenges (Pradhan et al. 2017).
The Sustainable Development Report 2021 presents the SDG index and indicators for the
member countries of UN, focusing on the impact of the COVID −19 pandemic on the SDGs
and the steps that need to be taken for the recovery process. According to this report, Turkey
is ranked 70th out of 165 countries with an index score of 70.4. There has been progress in
achieving the aims of no poverty, good health and well-being, quality education, clean water
and sanitation, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production,
and partnerships for the goals; however, Turkey could put more effort toward its 2030 targets
for other SDGs (Sachs et al. 2021). In addition, it was documented that $347 million of Turkey’s
2022 spending on the SDGs will be spent mainly on quality education (39.00%), decent jobs
and economic growth (13.37%), gender equality (11.16%), and no poverty (10.27%) (United
Nations in Turkey 2022).
The comprehensive development of all the SDGs is connected to cultural elements (Zheng
et al. 2021). Based on cultural elements, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) emphasize the
economic dimension of sustainable development, while Schwartz (2004) emphasizes the rela-
tionship between environmental and social performance. According to Hofstede Insights (2023),
Turkey is close to the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Uncertainty
avoidance refers to how individuals avoid ambiguity and uncertainty, especially when changes
occur rapidly and unpredictably. Power distance represents the extent to which individuals in
a society are willing to tolerate the unequal distribution of power within different institutions
and organizations. According to Schwartz (2014), Turkey’s national cultural value orientation is
aligned with embeddedness, mastery, and hierarchy. Embeddedness highlights a cultural struc-
ture that places significance on group norms, emphasizes resistance to change and the pres-
ervation of tradition, and values tradition, security, and obedience. In contrast, mastery signifies
a focus on individual achievement rather than on group success within a culture that promotes
achievement. Hierarchy underscores social order based on superior-subordinate relationships
within a culture. Furthermore, compared to its Middle Eastern Muslim neighbors, Turkey exhibits
lower levels of hierarchy and embeddedness. With all these different cultural characteristics,
Turkey has recently been struggling with various problems that make it difficult for it to achieve
its sustainable development goals. These include hosting millions of refugees from wars in
neighboring countries, droughts caused by climate change, and earthquakes affecting some 10
million people. These occurrences influence public investments and policies while motivating
people to assign individual and local issues more importance.
For the SDGs to have the desired impact, the learning objectives and content in education
systems should be set within the framework of the SDGs. Participating institutions should be
encouraged to adopt sustainability principles, and pedagogical practices that support learners
should be used in classroom practice (UNESCO 2017). Bonnett (2002) identified two possible
outcomes of education’s influence on sustainable development. First, sustainable development
requires people to have positive attitudes and behave in environmentally friendly ways. Education
may be a tool to encourage these behaviors actively. Second, enhancing students’ critical think-
ing skills and knowledge of sustainability-related topics may be beneficial because it will enable
them to make informed decisions. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) plays a
 Environmental Education Research 3

significant role in achieving the outcomes above within the SDG framework (Ssossé, Wagner,
and Hopper 2021). Yuan et al. (2022) indicated that UNESCO’s reports emphasize four essential
strategies for implementing SDGs through ESD. The first involves integrating ESD into policies,
strategies, and programs to enhance local preparedness for the challenges associated with
climate change and global warming (UNESCO 2014). The second strategy refers to embedding
ESD in K-12 and higher education through curricula and learning materials (UNESCO 2017). The
third strategy involves developing assessments and evaluations that are aligned with specified
goals and student achievement levels (UNESCO 2014). The fourth emphasizes the importance
of educators who have a deep understanding of ESD (Buckler and Creech 2014; Minott and
Minott 2023). Within this framework, teachers play a critical role in supporting understanding
of the SDGs (Sass et al. 2023).
Perception is an important factor that influences the selection of teachers from various
educational activities. Hoy (2019) defines perception as the recognition of a stimulus and the
attribution of meaning to that stimulus. Meaning is constructed based on physical representa-
tions of the world and a person’s current knowledge. The literature points to the positive
relationship between teachers’ perceptions of a topic and their preferred pedagogical practices,
as well as the instructional technologies, assessment, and evaluation methods they use (Borsos
et al. 2022; Darling-Hammond et al. 2020; Ferguson, Roofe, and Cook 2021; Hafour 2022; Veugen,
Gulikers, and den Brok 2021). Teachers’ perceptions that encourage effective learning also con-
tribute to students’ learning outcomes (Anyolo, Kärkkäinen, and Keinonen 2018; Muñoz, Scoskie,
and French 2013). An important variable that affects the development of teachers’ perceptions
is the teacher preparation program (Peterson-Ahmad, Hovey, and Peak 2018). Teachers’ qualifi-
cations are inextricably linked to all aspects of the learning process, and the quality of teacher
preparation programs is essential for improving teacher effectiveness (Berry 2010).

Studies on preservice teachers’ perceptions of sustainable development

The literature examines how preservice teachers’ ideas about sustainable development are
expressed in different countries. These studies utilized a variety of methodological and theoretical
frameworks to investigate preservice teachers’ perceptions. For instance, Baena-Morales et al.
(2022) surveyed sustainability competencies among preservice physical education teachers from
three universities in Spain. They found that participants had a high self-perception of their
competencies in the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainable development.
Yavetz, Goldman, and Pe’er (2014) conducted a paired pre-post study to examine Israeli preser-
vice teachers’ perceptions of the environment and the relevance of these perceptions to their
teaching domains. The results showed that while preservice teachers recognized the importance
of sustainable development, they did not have a sufficient understanding of the concept of the
environment. Evans et al. (2012) conducted a phenomenographic study and found that Australian
preservice teachers viewed education for sustainability as continuous, hands-on, local, relevant,
and focused on ecological and environmental systems. A survey study in the United Kingdom
found that preservice teachers recognize the central importance of sustainable development in
terms of environmental, economic, and social factors, although only a minority emphasize all
three dimensions (Summers and Childs 2007).
Looking beyond developed countries, Ferguson (2008) surveyed student perceptions of sus-
tainability at two teachers’ colleges in Jamaica. The results showed that the students’ under-
standing of sustainable development was narrow, with limited attention to issues related to
equity, social justice, political empowerment, and participation. Kilinc and Aydin (2013) conducted
a phenomenography study to find that Turkish preservice teachers hold different views on
sustainable development in areas such as environment, technology, society, economy, politics,
energy, and education. Karaarslan-Semiz and Isler-Baykal (2020) conducted semi-structured
4 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

interviews with Turkish preservice teachers and reported that most teachers were unable to
describe several aspects of sustainability, especially the environmental dimension. They also
stated that raising people’s awareness of the environment was the main goal of education for
sustainability.
Overall, the literature shows that preservice teachers recognize the importance of sustainable
development but are not always familiar with it. Preservice teachers have different views of
sustainable development and focus on different dimensions such as environment, technology,
society, economy, politics, energy, and education. In addition, although preservice teachers
generally recognize the importance of sustainable development for environmental, economic,
and social concerns, there are differences in the emphasis placed on each dimension.
Researchers have used a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate pre-
service teachers’ perceptions of sustainable development. The use of different research methods
has allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse perspectives and knowledge
levels of preservice teachers in various countries. Previous studies were conducted mainly in
developed countries. Although the theoretical framework of the studies reviewed generally
focuses on the economic, social, and environmental pillars of sustainable development, teachers’
perceptions suggest that they do not have a comprehensive understanding of this concept.

The aim of the research

Through analysis of the SDG framework and previous research, we have identified important
themes on which to base our research. First, preservice teachers have different perceptions of
sustainable development. Studying the perceptions of preservice teachers in the Turkish context
as a developing country is important to understand the views of future educators regarding
the SDGs. Second, researchers have used various qualitative and quantitative methodologies to
investigate preservice teachers’ perceptions of sustainable development. Using a different meth-
odology, such as the Q-methodology, in determining preservice teachers’ perceptions of the
SDGs may reveal original categories of viewpoints (Webler, Danielson, and Tuler 2009). Therefore,
this study used the Q-methodology, which can systematically and reproducibly measure per-
ceptions of sustainability and environmental issues in a given group (Sneegas et al. 2021). Unlike
typical survey-based research methods, the Q-methodology can help determine the relative
importance of statements presented to participants (Watts and Stenner 2012). Educational
processes in which teachers play a key role in achieving the SDGs are essential (UNESCO 2017).
This study seeks to explore which of the 17 SDGs are perceived as more (or less) important by
preservice teachers in Turkey. Indeed, it is important to identify the perceptions of preservice
teachers at the national level, as this will lead to better consideration in their education. Notably,
our goal was not to prioritize SDGs perceived as unimportant over those deemed important.
Rather, the goal was to gain insight into the perceptions of Turkish preservice primary school
teachers. In this way, educational stakeholders (e.g. educational institutions and policy makers)
can develop more specific and effective methods to include and communicate all SDGs in a
cultural context.

Method
Q-methodology is designed to objectively investigate individuals’ perceptions and yield quan-
titative results through statistical analysis (Ramlo and Newman 2011). This methodology includes
data collection and Q-analysis afterward (Watts and Stenner 2005). Employing a quantitative
approach, Q-methodology allows for the analysis of individual human factors. Using this meth-
odology, researchers can capture the meaning individuals attribute to an object or phenomenon
and examine how those meanings vary (McKeown and Thomas 2013). Participants reveal their
 Environmental Education Research 5

perceptions by comparing various attributes presented to them in specific situations.

Q-methodology enables us to see how the participants make sense of the world from their
perspectives (McKeown and Thomas 2013). Because an interpretation is based on ranking, and
any ranking is subjective, responses represent personal opinion, and there is no question of
validity (Brown 1993). In a study using the Q-methodology, participants ranked each statement
against all others and rated the relevance of those statements to their own goals (Fraschini
and Park 2021). Furthermore, this methodology, which is an accepted method for examining
people’s inner consciousness, emotions, and perceptions, has recently made its way into the
field of education (Anderson and Jacobson 2018; Fraschini and Park 2021; Gailey and Knowles
2022; Lee and Jung 2021; Meader and Larwin 2022; Rahma, Mardiatno, and Dyah 2022; Wu and
Wang 2021). Given the use of the Q-methodology in education to analyze psychological char-
acteristics, it seems fitting that this method be used to determine preservice teachers’ perceptions
of the SDGs. Accordingly, we analyzed and categorized preservice primary school teachers’
perceptions of the SDGs using the Q-methodology.
The study was conducted by the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics
Committee on Social Sciences and Humanities Research of Mugla Sitki Kocman University (Pro.
220179).

Participants
In Q-methodology studies, the aim is to determine the participants’ perceptions of the situ-
ation presented. In contrast to the quantitative R methodology, it is preferable to have a
limited number of participants (Chaaban et al. 2023; Watts and Stenner 2012). Such studies
aim to identify the patterns that emerge from Q-statements related to a given situation
(Webler, Danielson, and Tuler 2009). Furthermore, because participants represented the vari-
ables in these studies (Watts and Stenner 2012), researchers wanted to work with a limited
number of qualified participants (Q-sample) who offered diverse and distinctive views, rather
than conducting the study with a large sample. The most important requirement for partic-
ipant selection is a relevant perspective on context (Watts and Stenner 2012). The participants
in this study were 22 volunteer preservice primary school teachers. Preservice primary school
teachers play an important role in their future careers educating first through fourth graders
(ages 6-10) and have the opportunity to teach SDG content to their students at an early age.
This situation primarily stems from the fact that, except for foreign language courses, all
courses for students in grades 1 through 4, such as science, social studies, and life studies,
are taught by their primary school teachers. These teachers are responsible for student edu-
cation over four years. With these justifications, the university’s primary school teaching
department in Southwestern Turkey called preservice teachers in the first year of a bachelor’s
degree program to participate in this study. In addition, the study was introduced to the
preservice teachers in a face-to-face presentation. Preservice teachers interested in the study
were required to fill out a short form that included their name, age, gender, socioeconomic
status, and willingness to participate. To determine the heterogeneity of the research group,
22 volunteers were selected for the study from a pool of 33 individuals representing a variety
of genders and socioeconomic backgrounds (high, middle, and low). According to Webler,
Danielson, and Tuler (2009), to achieve the number of participants required for meaningful
results, especially for factor analysis, researchers must aim for one person for every three
Q-statements in their study. This requirement was met in the current study by statement (17)
and the ratio of participants (22).
Participants were assigned codes according to their gender and age. For example, code 18 F
was assigned to an 18-year-old female participant and code 19 M was assigned to a 19-year-old
male participant. Consecutive numbers (1), (2), (3), etc. were added to the codes assigned to
6 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

participants of the same gender and age. Of the 22 participants, 16 were female (73%) and six
were male (27%). This ratio represents the sex distribution of primary school teachers in Turkey.
Of the participants, five were 18, seven were 19, six were 20, three were 21, and one was 22.

Q-set
The Q-methodology allows individuals to express their perceptions and subjective views.
Therefore, the statements (Q-set) used in Q-methodology studies are expected to represent a
wide range of perceptions that the study group can understand (McLain 2021). The process
began with the creation of the design that contained the most comprehensive statements about
the topic under study (Stephenson 1993). Accordingly, the descriptions of the 17 SDGs adopted
by the UN were used as the basis. Each SDG was explained in one sentence and the logo of
each goal was placed next to the statements. Prior to the actual study, a pilot study was con-
ducted with 15 preservice primary school teachers. As part of the study, participants sorted
statements related to the 17 SDGs (Table 1).

Q-sorting
In a modified rank-ordering technique known as Q-sorting, a person models self-references by
distributing a Q-set that operates under certain conditions (Brown 1993; McKeown and Thomas
2013). In Q-sorting, a participant arranges Q-statements in a Q-grid (Damio 2016). In general,
a Q-grid can take the form of a pyramid or a normal distribution curve. There are boxes on
the Q-grid in which each Q-statement can be placed once. Therefore, the number of boxes on
the Q-grid depends on the number of Q-statements. A typical pyramid-shaped Q-grid has
markers, one for each statement with + and - points and a zero position in the middle. Markers
often include a shortened version of the instruction condition (e.g. “most like what I feel” + 3,
“neutral” 0, and “least like what I feel” − 3). In an ascending pattern, positive scores are posi-
tioned to the right of 0, whereas negative values are positioned to the left, or vice versa
(Chaaban et al. 2023; Damio 2016; McKeown and Thomas 2013). Q-sorting is based on perception
and not on the accuracy of statements. Q-sorting is based on perception and should be wholly
subjective, representing an individual’s point of view (Brown 1993). To represent their connection
and complexity, each statement is rated relative to the others (Rost 2021). In Q-methodology,
statements placed in the same column on the Q-grid were evaluated to have the same score.
(McKeown and Thomas 2013). Usually, it is recommended that interviews be held with partic-
ipants after they complete the Q-sort (Brown 1993). The purpose of conducting an interview
(called a post-Q-interview) was to explore the reasons behind the placement of Q-statements
on the Q-grid (Damio 2016).
The Q-set of the study consisted of 17 statements. This study used seven levels of perception:
one box for the −3 and +3 levels, two boxes for the −2 and +2 levels, three boxes for the −1
and +1 levels, and five boxes for the 0 level (Figure 1).
Q-sorting was conducted face-to-face with participants in one session. First, participants were
given the Q-statements in Figure 1, the Q-statements in Table 1, personal information forms,
and semi-structured questions. Participants received hands-on training on how to rank the
Q-statements. After the briefing, participants were given a 20-minute presentation with defini-
tions of the SDGs and action reports on these goals in Turkey. The focus of the presentation
was not on Turkey’s details or expenditures related to the SDGs. Instead, it was about providing
evidence that the country has accepted all 17 SDGs as part of its overall public policy. Therefore,
we mentioned the existence of action reports without going into their specific content. We
refrained from discussing specific actions, good or bad, related to each SDG. The focus was on
maintaining a neutral tone to provide context for participants without influencing their
 Environmental Education Research 7

Table 1. Sustainable development goals for Q-set.

Goal Number Sustainable Development Goals
End poverty in all its forms everywherezz

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for
all

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all

Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment,
and decent work for all

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster
innovation

Reduce inequality within and among countries

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development

Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for
all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable
Development
8 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Figure 1. The Q-grid.

judgments. At the beginning of the implementation, participants were reminded that there was
no correct ranking of the Q-statements, that they could categorize the statements into different
groups as they saw fit, and that they could ask questions throughout the implementation.
The next step was to pose the following question to the participants: “What do the
Sustainable Development Goals mean to you?” Without receiving a response, the participants
were instructed to think for a few minutes. Then, they are instructed to read the printed
statements and group them into three categories: “what I consider most important,” “what I
consider least important,” and “neutral.” Participants were instructed to work independently
in each category (e.g. “what I consider most important”). In the following stage, they were
asked to reread each statement, make finer distinctions among the statements, and place
them on the printed Q-grid where they believed it was most suitable. They were notified that
the columns for important SDGs were +3, +2, and +1; unimportant SDGs were −3, −2, and
−1; and neutral SDGs were 0 on the Q-grid. After Q-sorting was completed, the participants
were interviewed by asking questions about the following statements: (i) Why did you place
the statement in the +3 box of the grid? (ii) Why did you place your statement in the −3
grid box? and (iii) Did you place these expressions in the boxes as desired? The purpose of
asking these questions was not to obtain qualitative data to reveal participants’ perceptions
of the SDGs. The aim was to support the factors revealed by the quantitative analysis and
minimize potential scoring errors (Gallagher and Porock 2010). The interviews lasted between
five and 15 min for each participant.

Q-analysis
Q-methodology analysis is based on factor analysis of data obtained by Q-sorting. Unlike R
research, Q-methodology investigates subjects as questions and respondents as variables. In
other words, for each subject (Q-statement), Q-analysis examines the patterns between variables
(Q-sorting) (Webler, Danielson, and Tuler 2009). In Q-analysis, the correlation coefficient between
Q-sorts was calculated for each participant. Principal component analysis followed by varimax
rotation was performed (Anzai, Sy, and Bontje 2023).
The data obtained from sorting the Q-statements were analyzed using the software PQ
Method 2.35 developed by Schmolck (2014). The ranking of the Q-statements that each par-
ticipant had made was imported into the software. The software created a correlation matrix
by linking each sort of Q-statement to others. Principal component analysis was performed to
maximize the variance explained by the smallest number of factor structures. This resulted in
two factors that explained 68% of the variance in opinions. The researchers’ opinions and
statistical indicators, as well as the significant loading test, were used to decide on the
two-factor model (Watts and Stenner 2012). Additionally, normalized factor scores (z-scores
 Environmental Education Research 9

reflecting the ranking of each statement from each viewpoint) were used to determine the
ranking (-3 to +3) of each statement across factors. Participants ranked the sentences with the
lowest factor score (-3) as least important to them, and vice versa. Factors were interpreted
based on statements that described characteristics of each factor, statements that were sig-
nificantly different for the two factors, statements that shared characteristics with all factors,
interview data, and the SDGs theoretical framework (Øverland, Thorsen, and Størksen 2012).
The presentation of factors was based on consensus statements and distinguishing statements
according to the factor loadings in the results (Brown 1993). Data obtained from the interviews
were used as supplementary resources for the emerging factors, and participants’ expressions
were included in the presentation of the results.

Findings
Analysis of participants’ rankings on the Q-statements revealed a two-factor structure (Table 2).
Given the common characteristics of the SDGs, the two factors were prioritization of basic human
needs (Factor 1) and future human needs (Factor 2). The two factors suggested by participants
were those that were preferred by more than one participant. All participants in the study defined
themselves by one of the two factors. Of the two factors identified, the first had 20 descriptive
variables (significantly correlated responses) and the second had 2. Together, these two factors
accounted for 68% of the variance in the Q-statement rankings. The factor loadings corresponding
to each Q-statement rating associated with these two factors are shown in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, 20 participants participated in the first factor, and only two were
involved in the second factor.

Table 2. Factor loads of Q-sorting for the two factors.

Factors
Rank and participant code Basic human needs Future human needs
1 19M1 0.8479** 0.1283
2 21M1 0.7967** −0.0176
3 18F1 0.9006** 0.1277
4 19F1 0.7920** 0.2148
5 20F1 0.7445** −0.3049
6 20F2 0.8381** −0.2469
7 18M1 0.8827** 0.0322
8 20M1 0.7543** 0.0825
9 19F2 0.6962** −0.4436
10 19M2 0.7179** −0.0673
11 21F1 0.3026 0.8517**
12 20M3 0.8596** −0.0861
13 20F4 0.7647** 0.0819
14 18F2 0.7414** −0.0167
15 19F3 0.8471** 0.1134
16 19F4 0.4808 0.7705**
17 21F2 0.7690** 0.1583
18 20F5 0.8248** −0.0422
19 18F3 0.7971** 0.1673
20 19F5 0.7038** −0.2568
21 18F4 0.6933** −0.4728
22 22M1 0.8143** −0.1126
%exp.Var: 68% (Total) 58% 10%
**
Significant factor loadings with p < 0.01.
10 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

Table 3. Consensus statements for the two factors.

Q-sorting Value
No. Statement Basic human needs Future human needs
1* End poverty in all its forms everywhere +1 +1
4* Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote +1 +1
lifelong learning opportunities for all
5* Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls +1 +2
7* Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern −1 0
energy for all
9* Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable −2 −2
industrialization, and foster innovation
10* Reduce inequality within and among countries 0 0
11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and −2 −3
sustainable
13* Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 0 0
14* Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine 0 −1
resources for sustainable development
15* Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial 0 −1
ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt
biodiversity loss
16* Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable +3 +3
development, provide access to justice for all, and build
effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels
Note: All listed statements are non-significant at p > 0.01; those flagged with an * are also non-significant at p > .05. The
Q-sorting values were based on the z-scores of the statements. .

Consensus statements
The consensus statements are important for identifying the two factors. The two factors shared
11 statements (see Table 3 for Q-sorting values for each factor).
As seen in Table 3, statements 1 and 4 (+1), 10 and 13 (0), 9 (−2), and 16 (+3) were com-
mon in the rankings for both factors. Preservice primary school teachers identified Peace,
Justice, and Strong Institutions (16) as the most important SDG (+3). Participants’ views
emphasized the importance of No Poverty (1) and Quality Education (4). Participants’ views
on SDGs Reduced Inequalities (10) and Climate Action (13) were neutral (0). Participants
considered Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (9) to be the least important SDG (−2).
These six were important because they helped to determine the factors that emerged from
participants’ Q-sorting.
Table 3 shows that the second factor of the goals Gender Equality (5) and Affordable and
Clean Energy (7) was more important than the first. The first factor was more important than
the second for the SDGs Sustainable Cities and Communities (11), Life below Water (14), and
Life on Land (15). The SDGs expressed as Factor 1 were considered more important by the
preservice teachers. The Z-scores of the SDGs and the ranking of the Z-scores of the items in
each factor are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that the SDGs considered most important by both the 20 participants who
preferred Factor 1 and the two who preferred Factor 2 was Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
(16). The following are some quotes from the interviews with participants regarding the SDGs
of Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.
I think that where there is no peace and justice, there will be no fair and peaceful distribution of the
resources at hand (21F1, interview).
Since there will be no progress and goals will not be achieved in an environment without peace, the
establishment of peace, justice, and strong institutions is one of my indispensable goals (18F3,
interview).
I mentioned peace and justice because I think if there is no peace in the foundation of a society, nothing
else matters (19F3, interview).
 Environmental Education Research 11

Table 4. Z values and order of importance of the items.

Basic human needs Future human needs
No. Statement Z Ranking* Z Ranking*
16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for 1.36 1 2.01 1
sustainable development, provide access to
justice for all, and build effective,
accountable, and inclusive institutions at all
levels
2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved 1.28 2 0.00 10
nutrition, and promote sustainable
agriculture
3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for 1.05 3 −0.51 12
all at all ages
1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere 1.03 4 0.51 6
4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education 0.95 5 0.67 5
and promote lifelong learning opportunities
for all
5 Achieve gender equality and empower all 0.84 6 0.92 3
women and girls
10 Reduce inequality within and among countries 0.60 7 0.25 8
6 Ensure availability and sustainable management 0.12 8 −1.34 16
of water and sanitation for all
13 Take urgent action to combat climate change 0.03 9 0.00 10
and its impacts
14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, −0.14 10 −0.67 14
and marine resources for sustainable
development
15 Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of −0.44 11 −0.66 13
terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage
forests, combat desertification, halt and
reverse land degradation, and halt
biodiversity loss
7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, −0.58 12 −0.42 11
and modern energy for all
8 Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable −0.83 13 1.08 2
economic growth, full and productive
employment, and decent work for all
12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production −1.06 14 0.42 7
patterns
11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, −1.15 15 −2.01 17
safe, resilient, and sustainable
9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive −1.41 16 −1.08 15
and sustainable industrialization, and foster
innovation
17 Strengthen the means of implementation and −1.65 17 0.83 4
revitalize the Global Partnership for
Sustainable Development
*
Indicates the order of importance in which the participants favor the relevant factor attached to the item.

Among the SDGs included in Factor 1, Zero Hunger (2), Good Health and Well-Being (3), and
No Poverty (1) were other goals that participants felt were important. The least important
perceived SDG in Factor 1 was Partnership for the Goals (17). Considering the Z-scores and
ranking of goals in Factor 1, participants considered eight of the nine SDGs in Factor 1 important
and the rest less important.
Of the SDGs in Factor 2, Decent Work and Economic Growth (8), Gender Equality (5), and
Partnerships for Goals (17) were perceived as important by preservice teachers. The least import-
ant perceived SDG in Factor 2 was Sustainable Cities and Communities (11). Ten SDG statements
in Factor 2 are important, while seven are less important. This result was derived from the
Z-scores and ranking of the goals in Factor 2.
Two factors, prioritizing basic and future human needs, showed that participants were more
inclined to favor goals that address basic daily needs, while they were less inclined to prioritize
12 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

Table 5. Distinguishing statements for Factor 1.

No. Statement Q-SV* Z-SCR**
2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and 2 1.28
promote sustainable agriculture
3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 2 1.05
6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and 0 0.12
sanitation for all
8 Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, −1 −0.83
full and productive employment, and decent work for all
12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns −1 −1.06
11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and −2 −1.15
sustainable
17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the −3 −1.65
Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
*
Factor Q-sort value.
**
Z-Score.

Table 6. Distinguishing statements for Factor 2.

No. Statement Q-SV* Z-SCR**
8 Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, +2 1.08
full and productive employment, and decent work for all
5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls +2 0.92
17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the +1 0.83
Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable −1 −1.08
industrialization, and foster innovation
6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and −2 −1.34
sanitation for all
11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and −3 −2.01
sustainable
*
Factor Q-sort value.
**
Z-Score.

long-term goals. The following are quotes from the two factors and the characteristics of the
participants who participated in each factor.

Factor 1: prioritization of basic human needs

Factor 1 included the perceptions of 20 participants. Factor 1 accounted for 58% of
the between-goal variance. Preservice teachers who preferred Factor 1, emphasized both core
and long-range goals, and were aware of the relationship between core and long-range goals
participated in the study (see Table 5 for distinguishing statements regarding this factor).
Participants who preferred this factor gave priority (+2) to SDGs Zero Hunger (2) and Good
Health and Well-Being (3). In addition, they emphasized that SDGs such as Partnerships for the
Goals (17) and Sustainable Cities and Communities (11) were of secondary importance compared
to other goals. The interviews provided detailed information on these factors and supported
the findings. Accordingly, some quotes from the interviews with participants with the Zero
Hunger goal were conducted (2).
Many people worldwide are fighting hunger, and thousands of deaths from starvation occur every day. In
my opinion, this goal should be prioritized because it is of great importance, and hunger needs to be
combined (19F2, interview).
Ending hunger is more important than the goals oriented toward ensuring that individuals live wealthily
and comfortably because physical needs should be prioritized (21F2, interview).
The reason why I chose the goal of no hunger as the most important one is because I think that nutrition, which
is one of the most basic human needs, should be ensured to achieve other goals as well (21F5, interview).
 Environmental Education Research 13

Below are some quotes from interviews with the participants regarding the goal of Good
Health and Well-Being (3).
When we achieve the goal of having a healthy and quality life, we can also achieve other goals (18F4,
interview).
I chose the health-related sustainable development goal as the most important because, without health,
none of the other goals can be achieved (20M1, interview).
The reason I prioritized health and well-being is that it is an important goal to be achieved in order to
increase the welfare of society (19F2, interview).

Below are some quotes from interviews on Partnerships for the Goals (17), which the par-
ticipants who favored Factor 1 perceived as less important.
I think it would be more appropriate for each society to enter into large-scale partnerships with other
societies and nations after completing their own development (19F1, interview).
Global partnerships should be considered after achieving other goals. Countries and societies should
prioritize their own prosperity (18F4, interview).

Factor 2: prioritization of future human needs

Two participants preferred Factor 2, which accounted for 10% of the variance between the
different goals. Participants who preferred Factor 2 emphasized long-term goals (see Table 6
for distinguishing statements regarding this perspective).
Participants who favored this factor prioritized (+2) the SDGs for Decent Work and Economic
Growth (8) and Gender Equality (5). Participants who addressed Factor 2 emphasized that SDGs
such as Sustainable Cities and Communities (11) and Clean Water and Sanitation (6) were sec-
ondary to other goals. The interviews provided detailed information on this factor and supported
these findings. Regarding the SDG of Decent Work and Economic Growth (8), one of the par-
ticipants stated the following:
This goal takes precedence over other goals, as it helps improve productivity, and social growth is ensured
through the provision of humane working conditions (21F1, interview).

Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of Turkish preservice teachers toward SDGs
using Q-methodology. While the United Nations (2015) emphasizes that all SDGs have equal
importance and value, this study revealed that preservice teachers assign different priorities to
the SDGs from two perspectives: the prioritization of basic human needs and the prioritization
of future human needs. Turkey’s unique cultural context can explain the emergence of these
two perspectives. Schwartz (2014) noted that Turkey has a lower level of hierarchy and embed-
dedness than its Muslim neighbors in the Middle East. Turkish culture is characterized by a
tendency to avoid uncertainty and a high level of power distance. It values group norms and
is resistant to change. It emphasizes individual achievement and a dominant social hierarchy
(Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; Schwartz 2014). In addition, recently, in line with its
open-door policy, Turkey has become the country with the largest migrant population in the
world, hosting approximately five million people (United Nations Refugee Agency 2023). As a
result of this situation, there are economic problems that have arisen. According to Hofstede
Insights (2023), Turkey’s high score on the uncertainty avoidance dimension reflects preservice
teachers’ perceptions toward the SDGs. Within the uncertainty avoidance dimension, culture
members tend to increase their perception of threats in uncertain or unknown situations. In
this context, the high level of uncertainty avoidance in Turkey influences preservice teachers’
orientation toward the SDGs in relation to basic human needs. When prioritizing the basic
14 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

human needs perspective that preservice teachers predominantly adopt, the high ranking of
the SDGs related to ending hunger and ensuring health and well-being indicates that partici-
pants view these goals as fulfilling immediate needs. Preservice teachers’ perceptions of the
goals of global partnerships to achieve sustainable development and sustainable cities and
communities as less important may reflect this situation. The significant perception of the SDGs
in the context of decent work and economic growth from the second perspective, prioritizing
future human needs, echoes Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov’s (2010) idea that the economic
dimension plays a more important role in sustainable development.
In exploring the lessons learned in this study, certain common SDGs were drawn from
participants that favored both perspectives. For example, peace, justice, and strong institutions
were among the important SDGs perceived by participants. This SDG may have resulted from
Turkey’s cultural norms, which are characterized by a high power distance and a preference
for hierarchical structures (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; Schwartz 2014), as well as
the consequences of conflicts in neighboring countries, resulting in a high number of migrants
in Turkey. In addition, the SDGs did not mention poverty, quality education, or affordable and
clean energy, which were mentioned by participants as important goals. These highlighted
SDGs may have been perceived by preservice teachers as directly related to human needs.
However, the SDGs of industry, innovation and infrastructure, sustainable cities and commu-
nities, life below water, and partnerships to achieve the goals were perceived by participants
as less important than the other goals. This perception could be due to the fact that the SDGs
do not primarily address immediate human needs. This could also indicate that participants
did not prioritize ecosystem-related SDGs. Similarly, Kilinc and Aydin (2013) reported that the
understanding of sustainable development among preservice teachers in Turkey mainly focuses
on economic, social, and political aspects.
Studies have shown that the 17 SDGs have different theoretical classifications based on
different perspectives, criteria, and indicators (Fuso Nerini et al. 2019; Sachs et al. 2019; Vinuesa
et al. 2020). The recent increase in the number of immigrants coming to Turkey and the eco-
nomic and social problems resulting from this situation have led us to believe that preservice
teachers may prioritize SDGs related to basic human needs. Moreover, preservice teachers’ focus
on prioritizing basic human needs is closely linked to one of the six transformations introduced
by Sachs et al. (2019) as modular building blocks for achieving the SDGs: the transformation
of sustainable food, land, water, and oceans.
Although the general opinion in the literature is that diverse perspectives on sustainable
development emerge from the three pillars of the environment, society, and economy (e.g.
Baena-Morales et al. 2022; Summers and Childs 2007), in the current study, which was carried
out in the Turkish context, Turkish preservice teachers’ perceptions varied. Kilinc and Aydin
(2013) reported that preservice teachers in developing countries have various perspectives on
sustainable development. The two perspectives of the SDGs, perceived as either important or
less important, can provide valuable insights into the education of future teachers in Turkey.
In recent years, Turkey has prioritized spending on quality education, followed by initiatives
for decent jobs and economic growth, gender equality, and poverty reduction in line with the
SDGs (United Nations in Turkey 2022). However, despite being preservice teachers, the impor-
tance of quality education remained in the background, particularly in the prioritization of basic
human needs, which the majority of participants favored. UNESCO (2017) has emphasized the
importance of education in achieving the SDGs. Nonetheless, in the current study, future teachers
tend to assign a relatively lower priority to the SDG of quality education.
This result could be attributed to participants responding as individuals rather than based
on their professional roles. In addition, the statements of the participants, such as “ending
hunger is more important than the goals oriented at ensuring that individuals live wealthily
and comfortably,” and “… there is no peace and justice, there will be no fair and peaceful dis-
tribution of the resources …” point to their expectations. According to Kilinc and Aydin (2013),
 Environmental Education Research 15

contextual factors and citizens’ roles affect individuals’ perceptions of sustainable development.
For example, residents of a developed nation may place more importance on other aspects of
sustainable development, such as quality of life, than on the development of technology.
Moreover, perceptions of the SDGs are directly influenced by cultural variables (Zheng et al.
2021), and interdisciplinary relationships among SDGs (Fuso Nerini et al. 2019).

Conclusions and implications

The consideration of the SDGs in research and theoretical and practical training at the college
level, as well as their integration into the curricula of universities, which vary in scope and
thematic structure, provides a good opportunity to raise awareness of sustainable development
and its various perspectives (Leal Filho et al. 2021). However, teachers play a critical role in the
achievement of the SDGs, as they have the potential to affect young members of society directly
(Sass et al. 2023). This study found that Turkish preservice primary school teachers’ perceptions
of the SDGs can be divided into two categories: the prioritization of basic human needs and
the prioritization of future human needs. In addition, peace, justice, strong institutions, no
poverty, and quality education have higher priority in preservice teachers’ perception than any
other SDGs. Moreover, it was found that participants considered the SDGs related to industry,
innovation, and infrastructure to be less important.
The results of this Q-methodology study, conducted with a sample of preservice primary
school teachers studying at a Turkish university, contribute to the literature by revealing how
preservice teachers view the SDGs. Anyolo, Kärkkäinen, and Keinonen (2018) stated that pre-
service teachers’ perceptions of sustainable development education significantly affected how
they instructed their students and prepared them for the future. A critical aspect of implementing
ESD in schools is clear and consistent communication with preservice teachers about what they
should teach. Recognizing the critical role teachers play in achieving the SDGs through ESD,
this communication not only disseminates important knowledge and resources, but also culti-
vates a collaborative environment that enables educators to create lasting impacts on their
students and broader society (Sass et al. 2023; UNESCO 2014; Yuan et al. 2022). This is because
even if sustainable development is included or integrated into school curricula, intended success
cannot be attained if teachers have a limited understanding of sustainable development
(Darling-Hammond et al. 2020; Ferguson, Roofe, and Cook 2021). This, in turn, may encourage
consideration of future teachers’ voices on the SDGs. However, it is important to remember that
teachers’ perceptions of the SDGs are only one piece of the puzzle of SDG-aligned or integrated
teaching. Perceptions of the SDGs are not necessarily indicative of what teachers might teach,
as the prescribed curriculum and social norms in schools are also important factors. In addition,
teachers and preservice teachers are valuable members of the community. Individual perceptions
of the SDGs can be greatly influenced by events and cultural norms in their country. Moreover,
as a predominant belief in Turkey, Muslim values emphasize compassion, care, and concern for
the well-being of all people, especially the less fortunate, and prioritize the importance of
humanity. In the specific context of Turkey, the prevailing cultural values that prioritize traditions,
resist change, emphasize individualism over group dynamics, and uphold social hierarchy, com-
bined with economic crises and immigration policies, can be seen as factors that shape a
human-centric approach for participants in addressing the SDGs. This human-centered approach
may overshadow ecological considerations and result in less attention to ecosystem-related
SDGs. However, the fundamental link between ecosystem health and human well-being should
not be overlooked. Ecosystems provide vital services such as water, food, and disease regulation.
Underestimating the importance of these ecosystems can have profound consequences for
human well-being. Due to urbanization and limited contact with nature, preservice teachers,
like many members of modern society, may experience an increasing disconnection from nature.
16 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

This physical separation from nature can contribute to a lack of awareness and appreciation
for ecological considerations.
This study had some limitations. These limitations include that the Q-methodology can be
conducted with a limited number of participants and that the study was conducted with a
sample of Turkish participants in accordance with its country-specific nature. Based on these
limitations and research findings, we believe that in policy practice, governments and educa-
tional institutions should put forth more efforts to enhance the understanding of the interdis-
ciplinary and holistic structure of the SDGs, especially for future teachers. In practice, future
teachers need experience-focused ESD to integrate SDGs into various subjects. In this way,
future teachers can comprehend how goals are interconnected and applied in a real-world
context. In addition, we emphasize learning opportunities that introduce future teachers to
different viewpoints on the SDGs, such as prioritizing basic and future human needs, as this
research has shown. This will enable them to explore different viewpoints on the SDGs and
make informed decisions to implement effective teaching strategies for their holistic under-
standing. In addition, it is important to use the Q-methodology to identify the views of teachers’
from different countries on the SDGs to evaluate the research topic in depth and from a
cross-cultural perspective.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Halil Cokcaliskan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3454-0801
Hasan Zuhtu Okulu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2832-9620
Alper Yorulmaz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2832-6793

References
Alcántara-Rubio, Lucía, Rocío Valderrama-Hernández, Carmen Solís-Espallargas, and Jorge Ruiz-Morales. 2022. “The
Implementation of the SDGs in Universities: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Education Research 28 (11):
1585–1615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2063798
Anderson, Chloe, and Susan Jacobson. 2018. “Barriers to Environmental Education: How Do Teachers’ Perceptions
in Rural Ecuador Fit into a Global Analysis?” Environmental Education Research 24 (12): 1684–1696. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120
Anyolo, Eveline O., Sirpa Kärkkäinen, and Tuula Keinonen. 2018. “Implementing Education for Sustainable
Development in Namibia: School Teachers’ Perceptions and Teaching Practices.” Journal of Teacher Education for
Sustainability 20 (1): 64–81. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2018-0004
Anzai, Tetsuya, Michael P. Sy, and Peter Bontje. 2023. “Potential Roles of Occupational Therapists in Urban Planning
for Age-Friendly Environments: A Q-Methodology.” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 30 (6): 883–897.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2023.2170913
Baena-Morales, Salvador, Olalla García-Taibo, Gladys Merma-Molina, and Alberto Ferriz-Valero. 2022. “Analysing the
Sustainability Competencies of Preservice Teachers in Spain.” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 15
(3): 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-02-2022-0040
Bebbington, Jan, and Jeffrey Unerman. 2018. “Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31 (1): 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929
Berry, Ruth A. W. 2010. “Preservice and Early Career Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusion, Instructional
Accommodations, and Fairness: Three Profiles.” The Teacher Educator 45 (2): 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08878731003623677
Bonnett, Michael. 2002. “Education for Sustainability as a Frame of Mind.” Environmental Education Research 8 (1):
9–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120109619
Borsos, Éva, Isabel Banos-González, Edita Boric, Ragnhild Lyngved Staberg, and Andrea Bencéné Fekete. 2022.
“Trainee Teachers’ Perceptions on Outdoor Education.” Environmental Education Research 28 (10): 1490–1509.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2031901
 Environmental Education Research 17

Brown, Steven R. 1993. “A Primer on Q Methodology.” Operant Subjectivity 16 (3/4): 91–138. https://doi.org/10.22488/
okstate.93.100504
Buckler, Carolee, and Heather Creech. 2014. Shaping the Future We Want: Un Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (2005–2014): Final Report. Paris: UNESCO.
Chaaban, Youmen, Hadeel Alkhateeb, Abdullah Abu-Tineh, and Michael Romanowski. 2023. “Exploring Teachers’
Perspectives on Career Development: Q Methodology Research.” Teaching and Teacher Education 122 (February):
103987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103987
Council of Higher Education. 2018. “Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs.” https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/
Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/AA_Sunus_%20Onsoz_Uygulama_
Yonergesi.pdf.
Damio, Siti Maftuhah. 2016. “Q Methodology: An Overview and Steps to Implementation.” Asian Journal of University
Education 12 (1): 105–117. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1207820.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, Linda, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, Brigid Barron, and David Osher. 2020. “Implications for
Educational Practice of the Science of Learning and Development.” Applied Developmental Science 24 (2): 97–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Evans, Neus (Snowy), Hilary Whitehouse, and Ruth Hickey. 2012. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Conceptions of Education
for Sustainability.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (7): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n7.3
Ferguson, Therese. 2008. “Preservice Teachers’ Views on Nature, the Environment and Sustainable Development
Implications for Teacher Education.” Caribbean Journal of Education 30 (1): 108–135. https://www.mona.uwi.edu/
soe/publications/cje/article/1101.
Ferguson, Therese, Carmel Roofe, and Loraine D. Cook. 2021. “Teachers’ Perspectives on Sustainable Development:
The Implications for Education for Sustainable Development.” Environmental Education Research 27 (9): 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1921113
Fraschini, Nicola, and Hyunjin Park. 2021. “Anxiety in Language Teachers: Exploring the Variety of Perceptions with
Q Methodology.” Foreign Language Annals 54 (2): 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12527
Fuso Nerini, Francesco, Benjamin Sovacool, Nick Hughes, Laura Cozzi, Ellie Cosgrave, Mark Howells, Massimo
Tavoni, Julia Tomei, Hisham Zerriffi, and Ben Milligan. 2019. “Connecting Climate Action with Other
Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Sustainability 2 (8): 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-
019-0334-y
Gailey, Sara M., and Ryan T. Knowles. 2022. “Exploring Preservice Teachers’ Civic Education Beliefs with Q
Methodology.” Teaching Education 33 (4): 470–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2021.1979511
Gallagher, Katie, and Davina Porock. 2010. “The Use of Interviews in Q Methodology: Card Content Analysis.”
Nursing Research 59 (4): 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1097/nnr.0b013e3181e4ffff
Hafour, Marwa F. 2022. “The Effects of MALL Training on Preservice and in-Service EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and
Use of Mobile Technology.” ReCALL 34 (3): 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344022000015
Hofstede Insights. 2023. “Country Comparison Tool.” https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-
tool?countries=turkey.
Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind:
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. 3rd ed. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, Anita Woolfolk. 2019. Educational Psychology. New York: Pearson.
Karaarslan-Semiz, Güliz, and Isil Isler-Baykal. 2020. “Middle School Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Opinions
Related to Mathematics Education for Sustainability.” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 20 (89): 111–136.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1269768.
Kilinc, Ahmet, and Abdullah Aydin. 2013. “Turkish Student Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Sustainable Development:
A Phenomenography.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (5): 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500
693.2011.574822
Kopnina, Helen. 2020. “Education for the Future? Critical Evaluation of Education for Sustainable Development
Goals.” The Journal of Environmental Education 51 (4): 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1710444
Leal Filho, Walter, Fernanda Frankenberger, Amanda Lange Salvia, Ulisses Azeiteiro, Fatima Alves, Paula Castro,
Markus Will, et al. 2021. “A Framework for the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in
University Programmes.” Journal of Cleaner Production 299 (May): 126915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2021.126915
Lee, Sam Youl, and Minseo Jung. 2021. “Exploring Competing Perspectives on How to Design Open Innovation
Program for High School STEM Education: A Case Study.” Education Sciences 11 (7): 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci11070322
Malandrakis, George, Penelope Papadopoulou, Costas Gavrilakis, and Athanasios Mogias. 2019. “An Education for
Sustainable Development Self-Efficacy Scale for Primary Pre-Service Teachers: Construction and Validation.” The
Journal of Environmental Education 50 (1): 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2018.1492366
McKeown, Bruce, and Dan B. Thomas. 2013. Q Methodology. Los Angeles: Sage.
18 H. COKCALISKAN ET AL.

McLain, Matt. 2021. “Developing Perspectives on ‘the Demonstration’ as a Signature Pedagogy in Design and
Technology Education.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 31 (1): 3–26. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10798-019-09545-1
Meader, Kurt, and Karen H. Larwin. 2022. “Exploring the Perceptions of Male Teachers about the Shortage of Male
Elementary School Teachers: A Q Methodology.” Journal of Education 202 (4): 416–435. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022057421996243
Minott, Denise, and Garth Minott. 2023. “In Pursuit of a Sustainable Future for Jamaica: Values, Critical Consciousness,
and the Pre-Service Teacher.” Environmental Education Research 29 (7): 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350
4622.2022.2100319
Muñoz, Marco A., Julie R. Scoskie, and Diana L. French. 2013. “Investigating the ‘Black Box’ of Effective Teaching:
The Relationship between Teachers’ Perception and Student Achievement in a Large Urban District.” Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 25 (3): 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9167-9
Nilsson, Måns, Dave Griggs, and Martin Visbeck. 2016. “Policy: Map the Interactions between Sustainable
Development Goals.” Nature 534 (7607): 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a
Øverland, Klara, Arlene Arstad Thorsen, and Ingunn Størksen. 2012. “The Beliefs of Teachers and Daycare Staff
regarding Children of Divorce: A Q Methodological Study.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (3): 312–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.010
Peterson-Ahmad, Maria B., Katrina A. Hovey, and Pamela K. Peak. 2018. “Pre-Service Teacher Perceptions and
Knowledge regarding Professional Development: Implications for Teacher Preparation Programs.” Journal of
Special Education Apprenticeship 7 (2): 1–16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1185373.
Pradhan, Prajal, Luís Costa, Diego Rybski, Wolfgang Lucht, and Jürgen P. Kropp. 2017. “A Systematic Study of
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions.” Earth’s Future 5 (11): 1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2017EF000632
Rahma, Aldila, Djati Mardiatno, and Rahmawati Hizbaron Dyah. 2022. “Ecoliteracy Assessment Using Q-Methodology:
Indonesian High School Students’ Views on Disaster and Ecology.” Issues in Educational Research 32 (2): 701–720.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1352207.
Ramlo, Susan, and Isadore Newman. 2011. “Q Methodology and Its Position in the Mixed-Methods Continuum.”
Operant Subjectivity 34 (3): 172–191. (): –https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2010.009
Rost, Felicitas. 2021. “Q-Sort Methodology: Bridging the Divide between Qualitative and Quantitative. An Introduction
to an Innovative Method for Psychotherapy Research.” Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 21 (1): 98–106.
https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12367
Sachs, Jeffrey, Guido Schmidt-Traub, Christian Kroll, Guillame Lafortune, and Grayson Fuller. 2021. Sustainable
Development Report 2020: The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19 Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, Jeffrey D., Guido Schmidt-Traub, Mariana Mazzucato, Dirk Messner, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and Johan
Rockström. 2019. “Six Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Sustainability 2
(9): 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9
Sass, Wanda, Sven De Maeyer, Jelle Boeve-de Pauw, and Peter Van Petegem. 2023. “Honing Action Competence
in Sustainable Development: What Happens in Classrooms Matters.” Environment, Development and Sustainability
25 (4): 3649–3670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02195-9
Schmolck, Peter. 2014. "PQ Method." V.2.35. Schmolck. http://schmolck.org/qmethod/downpqwin.htm.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 2004. “Mapping and Interpreting Cultural Differences around the World.” In Comparing Cultures:
Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, edited by Henk Vinken, Joseph Soeters, and Peter Ester,
43–73. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 2014. “National Culture as Value Orientations: Consequences of Value Differences and Cultural
Distance.” In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture 2, edited by Victor A. Ginsburgh and David Throsby,
547–586. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53776-8.00020-9
Sneegas, Gretchen, Sydney Beckner, Christian Brannstrom, Wendy Jepson, Kyungsun Lee, and Lucas Seghezzo.
2021. “Using Q-Methodology in Environmental Sustainability Research: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic
Review.” Ecological Economics 180 (February): 106864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
Ssossé, Quentin, Johanna Wagner, and Carina Hopper. 2021. “Assessing the Impact of ESD: Methods, Challenges,
Results.” Sustainability 13 (5): 2854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052854
Stephenson, William. 1993. “Introduction to Q-Methodology.” Operant Subjectivity 17 (1/2): 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.22488/okstate.93.100509
Summers, Mike, and Ann Childs. 2007. “Student Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Sustainable Development: An
Empirical Study of Three Postgraduate Training Cohorts.” Research in Science & Technological Education 25 (3):
307–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535067
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2014. Teaching and Learning: Achieving
Quality for All. Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000225660.
 Environmental Education Research 19

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2017. Education for Sustainable
Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444.
United Nations in Turkey. 2022. “Sustainable Development Goals.” United Nations Türkiye. Accessed December 14,
2022. https://turkiye.un.org/en/sdgs.
United Nations Refugee Agency. 2023. ”Refugee Data Finder.” The UN Refugee Agency. Accessed May 12, 2023.
https://popstats.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/download/.
United Nations. 2015. “Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25
September 2015 (A/70/L.1)”. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Veugen, M. J., J. T. M. Gulikers, and P. den Brok. 2021. “We Agree on What We See: Teacher and Student Perceptions
of Formative Assessment Practice.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 70 (September): 101027. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101027
Vinuesa, Ricardo, Hossein Azizpour, Iolanda Leite, Madeline Balaam, Virginia Dignum, Sami Domisch, Anna Felländer,
Simone Daniela Langhans, Max Tegmark, and Francesco Fuso Nerini. 2020. “The Role of Artificial Intelligence
in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Communications 11 (1): 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-019-14108-y
Watts, Simon, and Paul Stenner. 2005. “Doing Q Methodology: Theory, Method and Interpretation.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 2 (1): 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa
Watts, Simon, and Paul Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London:
Sage.
Webler, Thomas, Stentor Danielson, and Seth Tuler. 2009. Using QMethod to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental
Research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. http://www.serius.org/sites/default/files/
Qprimer.pdf.
Winkel, Georg, Glenn Galloway, Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Wil de Jong, Pia Katila, and Pablo Pacheco. 2019. “The
Impacts of the Sustainable Development Goals on Forests and People-Conclusions and the Way Forward.” In
Sustainable Development Goals: Their Impacts on Forests and People, edited by Pia Katila, Carol J Pierce, Wil De
Jong, Glenn Galloway, Pablo Pacheco, and Georg Winkel, 601–617. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
World Bank. 2022. World Population Prospects. The World Bank. Accessed December 12, 2022. https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2020&start=%201960&view=%20chart.
Wu, Peng, and Yanyan Wang. 2021. “Investigating Business English Teachers’ Belief about Online Assessment: Q
Methodology Conducted during COVID-19 Period.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 30 (6): 621–630. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00604-7
Yadav, Shailesh Kumar, Arnab Banerjee, Manoj Kumar Jhariya, Ram Swaroop Meena, Abhishek Raj, Nahid Khan,
Sandeep Kumar, and Seema Sheoran. 2022. “Environmental Education for Sustainable Development.” In Natural
Resources Conservation and Advances for Sustainability, edited by Manoj Kumar Jhariya, Ram Swaroop Meena,
Arnab Banerjee, and Surya Nandan Meena, 415–431. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.
Yavetz, Bela, Daphne Goldman, and Sara Pe’er. 2014. “How Do Preservice Teachers Perceive ‘Environment’ and Its
Relevance to Their Area of Teaching?” Environmental Education Research 20 (3): 354–371. https://doi.org/10.10
80/13504622.2013.803038
Yuan, Xinqun, Le Yu, Hao Wu, Hanshi She, Jie Luo, and Xiaowen Li. 2022. “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Priorities of Senior High School Students and Global Public: Recommendations for Implementing Education
for Sustainable Development (ESD).” Education Research International 2022 (March): 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2022/2555168
Zheng, Xinzhu, Ranran Wang, Arjen Y. Hoekstra, Maarten S. Krol, Yaxin Zhang, Kaidi Guo, Mukul Sanwal, et al.
2021. “Consideration of Culture is Vital If We Are to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” One Earth 4
(2): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.012