سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات163
تعداد شماره‌ها6,826
تعداد مقالات73,616
تعداد مشاهده مقاله134,913,284
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله105,309,448
امیدی فر, رضا, رومیانی, یونس. (1404). تعیین عوامل تأثیرگذار بر آموزش محیط‌زیست در راستای توسعه پایدار و رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه‌های دولتی در تهران. , 57(2), 139-154. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2023.356922.1008588
رضا امیدی فر; یونس رومیانی. "تعیین عوامل تأثیرگذار بر آموزش محیط‌زیست در راستای توسعه پایدار و رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه‌های دولتی در تهران". , 57, 2, 1404, 139-154. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2023.356922.1008588
امیدی فر, رضا, رومیانی, یونس. (1404). 'تعیین عوامل تأثیرگذار بر آموزش محیط‌زیست در راستای توسعه پایدار و رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه‌های دولتی در تهران', , 57(2), pp. 139-154. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2023.356922.1008588
امیدی فر, رضا, رومیانی, یونس. تعیین عوامل تأثیرگذار بر آموزش محیط‌زیست در راستای توسعه پایدار و رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه‌های دولتی در تهران. , 1404; 57(2): 139-154. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2023.356922.1008588

تعیین عوامل تأثیرگذار بر آموزش محیط‌زیست در راستای توسعه پایدار و رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه‌های دولتی در تهران

پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی
مقاله 9، دوره 57، شماره 2، مرداد 1404، صفحه 139-154    اصل مقاله (779.09 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2023.356922.1008588
نویسندگان
رضا امیدی فر* ؛ یونس رومیانی
گروه حکمرانی آموزش، دانشکده حکمرانی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
هدف پژوهش حاضر تبیین اثرگذاری عوامل زمینه‌ای و فرایندی بر آموزش محیط‌زیست دانشجویان در راستای نیل به توسعه پایدار و همچنین ارزیابی دانشگاه‌ها با استفاده از مدل TOPSIS در این عوامل است. این مطالعه از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر گردآوری داده‌ها از نوع پژوهش‌های توصیفی–تحلیلی و پیمایشی است. جامعه مورد مطالعه دانشجویان دانشگاه‌های شهر تهران شامل 165981 نفر است. در این پژوهش تعداد 383 نفر از دانشجویان از جامعه آماری به عنوان نمونه و با استفاده از روش طبقه‌ای نسبتی و فرمول کوکران انتخاب شدند. جهت سنجش مؤلفه‌ها نیز از پرسشنامه استفاده شد. روایی شاخص‌ها با استفاده از نظر استادان و متخصصان مربوطه مورد تأیید قرار گرفت و پایایی اجزای آن به روش آلفای کرونباخ بررسی گردید که مقدار آن بیش از 8/0 محاسبه شد. تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون و تحلیل واریانس بیانگر ارتباط معنادار بین شاخص‌های انگیزش پیشرفت تحصیلی، عوامل اجتماعی، عوامل فرهنگی، کیفیت آموزش عالی با آموزش محیط‌زیست بود. یافته‌های نشان داد که حدود 5/84 درصد از تغییرات آموزش محیط‌زیست به وسیله متغیرهای مستقل تبیین می‌شود که از بین آن‌ها عوامل فرهنگی با سطح معنی‌داری کمتر از 004/0 مهم‌ترین فاکتور اثرگذار بود. همچنین رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها از نظر شاخص‌های تحقیق توسط مدل TOPSIS بیانگر تفاوت بین دانشگاه‌های شهر تهران از نظر برخورداری از شاخص آموزش محیط زیست بود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
آموزش محیط‌زیست؛ توسعه پایدار؛ دانشگاه‌های تهران؛ رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌؛ عوامل زمینه‌ای
عنوان مقاله [English]
Determining Factors Affecting Environmental Education in the Context of Sustainable Development and University Rankings: A case study of Public Universities in Tehran
نویسندگان [English]
Reza Omidifar؛ Yones Romiani
Department of Education Governance, Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study is to explain the impact of contextual and process factors on students' environmental education in order to achieve sustainable development and also to evaluate universities using the TOPSIS model in these factors. This study is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical and survey research in terms of data collection. The study population of students in Tehran universities consists of 165,981 people. In this study, 383 students were selected as a sample using the proportional stratification method and the Cochran formula. A questionnaire was also used to measure the components. The validity of the indicators was confirmed using the opinions of relevant professors and experts, and the reliability of its components was examined using the Cronbach's alpha method, which was calculated to be more than 0.8. Data analysis using Pearson's correlation coefficient and analysis of variance indicated a significant relationship between the indicators of academic achievement motivation, social factors, cultural factors, and the quality of higher education with environmental education. The findings showed that about 84.5 percent of the changes in environmental education are explained by independent variables, among which cultural factors were the most important influential factor with a significance level of less than 0.004. Also, the ranking of universities in terms of research indicators by the TOPSIS model indicated the difference between universities in Tehran in terms of having the environmental education index.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Environmental problems have intensified alarmingly in recent decades, emerging as one of humanity's most critical and existential challenges. Key drivers accelerating this crisis include unsustainable industrial and agricultural practices, excessive exploitation of natural resources (like deforestation and overfishing), and widespread greenhouse gas emissions primarily from fossil fuel dependence. These activities trigger devastating consequences such as climate change, biodiversity collapse, and pervasive pollution. Addressing this requires fundamental shifts, where environmental education represents an essential long-term strategy for mitigating these crises and advancing global sustainability goals. It functions by deepening understanding of intricate human-nature interdependencies and fostering a profound sense of collective responsibility. Furthermore, it empowers present and future generations to make informed, eco-conscious decisions in their personal and professional lives, supports the development of green economic infrastructure, and crucially translates complex scientific knowledge into tangible action. Consequently, environmental education is indispensable for achieving meaningful sustainable development and securing a healthy, equitable future for all. This applied research specifically aimed to investigate these dynamics within higher education. Its primary objectives were: 1) to rigorously examine the impact of contextual factors (encompassing cultural norms and social influences) and process factors (including perceived higher education quality and students' academic achievement motivation) on university students' environmental education levels, and 2) to systematically evaluate and rank universities based on key environmental education indicators using the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making model. The central research question guiding this inquiry was: "To what extent do cultural factors, social factors, higher education quality, and academic achievement motivation impact the environmental education of university students?" A secondary purpose was to determine universities' comparative standings on a broader environmental attitude index, also utilizing the analytical power of the TOPSIS model.
 
Methodology
This applied study employed a descriptive-correlational survey methodology. The statistical population comprised 165,981 students from comprehensive and technical-engineering universities in Tehran during the 2021-2022 academic year. A representative sample of 383 students was selected using proportional stratified sampling (with university, degree level, and field of study as strata) and the Cochran formula for large populations. The primary data collection instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire, designed after an extensive literature review and examination of research background. The content and face validity of the questionnaire's indicators and items were confirmed by experts in environmental science and higher education. Its reliability was verified by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient, with satisfactory results exceeding 0.7 for all constructs. The dependent variable was "Environmental Education," and the independent variables included "Social Capital," "Cultural Factors," "Higher Education Quality," and "Academic Achievement Motivation." Data analysis employed descriptive and inferential statistics (Pearson correlation coefficient, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple regression) in SPSS software. University ranking was performed using the TOPSIS model.
 
Results and Discussion
Results from Pearson correlation and ANOVA analyses revealed significant relationships between all independent variables (Academic Achievement Motivation, Social Factors, Cultural Factors, and Higher Education Quality) and Environmental Education. Regression analysis further showed that these variables explained 84.5% of the variance in Environmental Education. Among them, "Cultural Factors" (p < 0.004) emerged as the strongest predictor. University ranking using the TOPSIS model also indicated a significant difference in the status of the environmental education index among Tehran universities.
 
Conclusion
The findings of this study strongly indicate that effective environmental education in Tehran universities is a multidimensional, complex phenomenon dependent on the dynamic interaction of individual, social, and institutional factors. The statistical results confirm a positive and significant relationship between all studied variables (cultural factors, social factors, higher education quality, and achievement motivation) and environmental education. They particularly highlight the pivotal role of cultural factors—such as collective pro-environmental values, socially responsible attitudes, and sustainability-promoting norms—as the strongest predictor. This underscores that education is not merely the transfer of knowledge but must also engage with the societal cultural context and reinforce sustainability-aligned values. Furthermore, the significant gap identified among the studied universities in the composite index of environmental education reveals the necessity for tailored, targeted, and flexible policy-making for each university. It also necessitates allocating financial, human, and educational resources commensurate with each institution's specific needs, strengths, and weaknesses. A uniform approach will likely lack efficacy. Ultimately, this research emphasizes that designing and implementing integrated, context-based, and multifaceted educational programs is essential and urgent for achieving deep and sustainable effectiveness of environmental education in Iran's higher education system. These programs must be aligned with and sensitive to societal culture while systematically enhancing institutional quality (through curriculum improvement, faculty empowerment, and provision of facilities) and student motivation (via active teaching methods, meaningful practical projects, and connection to real-world challenges).
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Environmental Education, Sustainable Development, Underlying Factors, Tehran’s Universities, University Ranking
مراجع
  1. ادریسی، افسانه؛ رحمانی خلیلی، احسان و حسینی امین، نرگس. (1391). سرمایه فرهنگی خانواده و ذائقه فراغتی دانشجویان  با رویکرد نظری بوردیو (مورد مطالعه:  دانشجویان دانشگاه تهران). فصلنامه جامعه‌شناسی مطالعات جوانان، 2( 5)،  50-27. https://doi10.30495/jss.2023.1971144.1507
  2. ادهمی، عبدالرضا؛ اکبرزاده، الهام . (1390). بررسی عوامل فرهنگی مؤثر بر حفظ محیط زیست در شهر تهران (مطالعه موردی: مناطق 5 و 18 تهران). مجله تخصصی جامعه شناسی، 1(1) ،62-38.
  3. اسدی، یاسمن؛ چلوخانی نیارکی، محمدرضا و عزی مند، کیوان (1399). بررسی کیفیت محیط زیست زندگی شهری با استفاده از تحلیل چندمعیاره مکانی (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 6 تهران. فصلنامه پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 52 (1)، 383-367.  https://doi10.22059/JHGR.2020.288508.1008003
  4. حسینی، سیدحسن و احمدی، سینا. (۱۳۹۲). بررسی میزان سرمایه های فرهنگی، اجتماعی، و اقتصادی خانواده و رابطه آن‌ها با گرایش والدین به تبعیض جنسیتی میان فرزندانشان (مطالعه موردی: والدین شهرستان جوانرود). بررسی مسائل اجتماعی ایران، 7 (1): 27-56. https://doi10.22059/IJSP.2016.60188
  5. حقیقتیان، منصور؛ پورافکاری، نصراله و جعفری نیا، غلامرضا. (1391). تأثیر رفتارهای اجتماعی زیست‌محیطی بر توسعه اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی: کارکنان پارس جنوبی عسلویه). مجله مطالعات توسعه اجتماعی ایران، 5 (1)، 153-136.
  6. خادمیان، طلیعه. (1390). سبک زندگی و مصرف فرهنگی. تهران، انتشارات جهان کتاب.
  7. خوش‌فر، غلامرضا؛صالحی، صادق؛ وصال، زینب و عباس زاده، محمدرضا، (1394). بررسی عوامل اجتماعی موثر بر آگاهی‌های زیست‌محیطی روستاییان. فصلنامه پژوهش‌های روستایی، 6 (1)، 158-137. Http://doi.org/10.22059/JRUR.2015.54235
  8. دانشور، نیره. (1384). آموزش‌عالی و توسعه درون‌زا. اولین کنگره جنبش نرم‌افزاری و آزاداندیشی.
  9. روح‌الامینی، محمود. (1365). زمینه فرهنگ شناسی. تهران، انتشارات عطار.
  10. سجادی، ژیلا؛ افراسیابی راد، محمدصادق؛ توکلی نیا، جمیله و یوسفی، حسین (1397). تحلیل شاخص‌های جهانی محیطزیست با رویکرد توسعۀ پایدار شهر تهران. فصلنامه پژوهش­های جغرافیای انسانی، 50 (4)، 927-907.  https://doi.org/10.22059/JHGR.2017.61601
  11. شریفیان، شیوا؛ سرمدی، محمدرضا و شبیری، سیدمحمد. (1389).  نیازسنجی و تعیین اولویت‌های آموزشی دانش‌آموزان و دبیران مقطع راهنمایی در زمینه محیط ‌زیست. علوم و تکنولوژی محیط ‌زیست، 12(4)، Http://doi.org/10.22099/jcr.2018.4955
  12. صالحی، صادق و پازوکی نژاد، زهرا. (1392). محیط زیست در آموزش عالی: ارزیابی دانش زیست‌محیطی دانشجویان دانشگاه‌های دولتی مازندران. نشریه مطالعات برنامه ریزی آموزشی، 2 (4)، 221-199.
  13. فاضلی، محمد. (1382). مصرف و سبک زندگی. قم، انتشارات صبح صادق.
  14.  فوکویاما، فرانسیس (1379). پایان نظم: سرمایه اجتماعی و حفظ آن. ترجمه غلامعباس توسلی، انتشارات شرکت حکایت قلم نوین (جامعه ایرانیان)
  15. فهام، الهام و رضوانفر، احمد. (1394). آموزش برای توسعه پایدار در آموزش عالی(مبانی و رهیافت ها). تهران: جهاد دانشگاهی واحد صنعتی شریف.
  16. فیلد، جان (1385). سرمایه اجتماعی. ترجمه جلال متقی، انتشارات موسسه عالی پژوهش تأمین اجتماعی
  17. گودرزوند چگینی، مهرداد. (1397). رویکرد دانشگاه نسل چهارم کار و عمل. فصلنامه آموزش مهندسی ایران، 20 (78)، 1-16. https://doi.org/10.22047/ijee.2018.128487.1541
  18. محمودی، حسین و ویسی، هادی. (1384). ترویج و آموزش محیط زیست رهیافتی در حفاظت اصولی از محیط زیست، 2 ( 8)، 64-57
  19. مکنون، رضا؛ علوی مقدم، سیدمحمدرضا و  طاهر شمسی، احمد. (1383). طراحی سبز، گامی مهم برای آموزش مهندسی در جهت توسعه پایدار، همایش آموزش عالی و توسعه پایدار. مجموعه مقالات همایش، جلد اول، تهران: موسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی، 269-259.
  20. نامداری، روح انگیز و نجفیان، محسن. (1391). بررسی عوامل اجتماعی- اقتصادی موثر بر عملکرد زنان در حفظ محیط زیست در شهرستان آبادان. فصلنامه زن و فرهنگ، 3 (15)، 98-89.
  21. ویسانی، مختار؛ غلامعلی لواسانی، مسعود و اژه ای، جواد. (۱۳۹۱). نقش اهداف پیشرفت، انگیزش تحصیلی و راهبردهای یادگیری بر اضطراب آمار: آزمون مدلی علی. روانشناسی، 16 (2)،160-142.
  22. همتی، زهرا و شبیری، سیدمحمد. (1394). تحلیلی بر مولفه های ارتقای فرهنگ محیط زیستی، مطالعه موردی: شهروندان شهر شیراز. فصلنامه تحقیقات فرهنگی ایران، 8 (4)، 215-197. https://doi.org/10.7508/ijcr.2015.32.008
  23. Abd El-Salam, M., El-Naggar, H. M., & Hussein, R. A. (2009). Environmental education and its effect on the knowledge and attitudes of preparatory school students. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 84 (3-4), 343–367.
  24. Adhami, A., & Akbarzade, A. (2011). A study of cultural factors affecting the preservation of the environment in Tehran (Case Study: Districts 5 and 18 of Tehran). Specialized Journal of Sociology, 1(2), 38–62. https://doi10.30495/jss.2023.1971144.1507 [In Persian].
  25. Alghamdi, N., Heijer, A. D., & De Jonge, H. (2017). Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: An analytical overview. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (1), 84–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071
  26. Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Abubakar, I. R. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (16), 1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002
  27. Al-Turki, M., & Duffuaa, S. (2003). Performance measures for academic department. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17 (7), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540310501012
  28. Amestrang, M. (2001). Human resource management strategies. Fara Publications.
  29. Aminrad, Z., Azizi, M., & Wahab, M. (2010). Environmental awareness and attitude among Iranian Students in Malaysian Universities. Environmental Asia, 3 (1), 1–10.
  30. Asadi, Y. , Jelokhani-Niaraki, M. and ezimand, K. (2020). Evaluation of environmental quality of urban life by spatial multi criteria analysis (case study: region 6 of Tehran). Human Geography Research, 52(1), 367-383. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.288508.1008003[In Persian].
  31. Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39 (4), 435–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505283421
  32. Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29 (4), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599124
  33. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2010). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education, 61 (4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1
  34. Bulkeley, H. (2000). Common knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastle, Australia. Public Understanding of Science,  9 (3), 313-333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250000900301
  35. Burmann, C., García, F., Guijarro, F., & Oliver, J. (2021). Ranking the performance of universities: The role of sustainability. Sustainability, 13 (23), 13286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313286
  36. Burns, H. (2009). Education as sustainability: An action research study of the Burns model of sustainability pedagogy [Doctoral dissertation, Portland State University]. PDXScholar. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.270
  37. Bursztyn, M. (2008). Sustainability science and the university: Towards interdisciplinarity (CID Working Paper No. 24). Center for International Development at Harvard University.
  38. Caeiro, S. S., Sandoval-Hamón, L. A., Martins, R., & Bayas Aldaz, C. E. (2020). Sustainability assessment and benchmarking in higher education institutions—A critical reflection. Sustainability, 12 (2), 543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020543
  39. Cantell, H., & Koskinen, S. (2004). Ympäristökasvatuksen tavoitteita ja sisältöjä [Aims and contents in EE]. In H. Cantell (Ed.), Ympäristökasvatuksen käsikirja (pp. 60–79). PS-Kustannus.
  40. Daneshvar, N. (2005). Higher education and endogenous development. Proceedings of the First Congress of the Software Movement and Liberal Thinking. [in Persian]
  41. Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Ramos, M. R., & Azeiteiro, U. M. (2012). Environmental Management Systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education institutions—Top-down versus participatory approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.034
  42. Edrisi, A., Rahmani Khalili, A., & Hosseini Amin, N. (2012). Family cultural capital and students' leisure taste with Bourdieu's theoretical approach: Case Study: Tehran University students. Sociological Studies of Youth, 2(5), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.30495/jss.2023.1971144.1507 [In Persian].
  43. Faham, A., & Rezvanfar, A. (2015). Education for sustainable development in higher education (fundamentals and approaches). Academic Jihad Publishing, Sharif Industrial Unit. [In Persian].
  44. Fazeli, M. (2003). Consumption and lifestyle. Sobh Sadegh Publications. [in Persian]
  45. Fild, John (2006). Social Capital, translated by Jalal Mottaqi, Higher Institute for Social Security Research Publication. [In Persian]. 
  46. Findler, F., Schönherr, N., Lozano, R., & Stacherl, B. (2019). Assessing the impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development—an analysis of tools and indicators. Sustainability, 11 (1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010059
  47. Fukuyama, Francis (1990). The End of Order: Social Capital and Its Preservation. Translated by Gholam Abbas Tavasoli, Hekayat Qalam Novin Publishing Company (Iranian Society) . [In Persian]. 
  48. Guderzond Chegini, M. (2017). The approach of the fourth generation University Work and practice. Iranian Engineering Education Quarterly, 20 (78), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.22047/ijee.2018.128487.1541 [in Persian]. 
  49. Haghighatian, M., Pour Afkari, N., & Jafarinia, G. (2012). The effect of environmental social behaviors on social development (case study: employees of South Pars Asalouye). Iranian Journal of Social Development Studies, 5(1), 126–153. [In Persian].
  50. He, X., Hong, T., Liu, L., & Tiefenbacher, J. (2011). A comparative study of environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among university students in China. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 20 (2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2011.564481
  51. Heffernan, T. A., & Heffernan, A. (2017). Language games: University responses to ranking metrics. Higher Education Quarterly, 72 (1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12139
  52. Hemati, Z., & Shobeiri, S. M. (2015). An analysis of the components of environmental culture promotion: Case study: Citizens of Shiraz. Iranian Journal of Cultural Research, 8(4), 197–215. [In Persian]. 
  53. Hosseini, S. H. and Ahmadi, S. (2016). An investigation into the relationship between cultural capital and gender discrimination. Journal of Social Problems of Iran, 7(1), 27-56. https://doi: 10.22059/ijsp.2016.60188 [in Persian]. 
  54. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
  55. Jódar, L., & De La Poza, E. (2020). How and why the metric management model is unsustainable: The case of Spanish universities from 2005 to 2020. Sustainability, 12 (15), 6064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156064
  56. Khademian, T. (2011). Lifestyle and cultural consumption. Jahan Kitab Publications. [In Persian]. 
  57. Khoshfar, G., Salehi, S., Vesal, Z., & Abbaszadeh, M. (2015). Survey the social factors affecting the environmental awareness of villagers. Rural Research Quarterly, 6(1), 127–158. https://doi.org/10.22059/JRUR.2015.54235 [in Persian]. 
  58. Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., & Pace, C. R. (1997). College student experiences questionnaire: Revised norms for the third edition. Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Indiana University.
  59. Mahmoudi, H. and Veisi, H. (2005). An Environmental Extension and Education Approach to Primary Environmental Care. Environmental Sciences. 2 (8), 11–20. [In Persian]. 
  60. Maknoon, R., Alavimoghadam, M. R., & Tahershamsi, A. (2004). Green design, an important step for engineering education for sustainable development. In Proceedings of the Conference on Higher Education and Sustainable. Development (Vol. 1, pp. 259–269). Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education. [In Persian]. 
  61. Mantz, Y. (1995). Self-scrutiny of quality in higher education: A questionnaire. Quality Assurance in Education, 3 (1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889510082390
  62. Mihelcic, J. R., Paterson, K. G., Phillips, L. D., Zhang, Q., Watkins, D. W., Barkdoll, B. D., Fuchs, V. J., & Hokanson, D. R. (2007). Educating engineers in the sustainable futures model with a global perspective. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 25 (4), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286600802002981
  63. Mohammadi, R., Fathabadi, J., Yadegarzadeh, Gh., Mirzamohammadi, M. H., & Parand, K. (2005). Quality evaluation in higher education (concepts, principles, methods and criteria). Iran Education Measurement Organization Publications. [In Persian].
  64. Muñoz-Suárez, M., Guadalajara, N., & Osca, J. M. (2020). A comparative analysis between global university rankings and environmental sustainability of universities. Sustainability, 12 (14), 5759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145759
  65. Namdari, R., & Najafiyan, M. (2012). The study of socio-economic factors affecting women's performance in environmental protection in Abadan. Women and Culture, 3(15), 7–16. [In Persian]. 
  66. Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2017). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible? A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029
  67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1984). OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals, Section 2: Effects on biotic systems. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264070027-en
  68. Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press.
  69. Ozdemir, Y., Kaya, S. K., & Turhan, E. (2020). A scale to measure sustainable campus services in higher education: “Sustainable Service Quality”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118839
  70. Palmberg, I. E., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31 (4), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598649 (Note: Original citation was to a chapter in Palmer 1998, but this journal article version exists and is more accessible).
  71. Parvez, N., & Agrawal, A. (2019). Assessment of sustainable development in technical higher education institutes of India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.305
  72. Pearce, D., Barbier, E., & Markandya, A. (1990). Sustainable development: Economics and environment in the Third World. Edward Elgar.
  73. Rokholamini, M. (1986). Field of cultural studies. Attar Publications. [In Persian]. 
  74. Safón, V., & Docampo, D. (2020). Analyzing the impact of reputational bias on global university rankings based on objective research performance data: The case of the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU). Scientometrics, 125 (3), 2199–2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03722-z
  75. Sajadi, J. , Afrasiabirad, M. S. , Tavakolinia, J. and Yousefi, H. (2018). Analysis of Global Environmental Indices by Urban Sustainable Development Approach. Human Geography Research, 50(4), 907-927. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2017.61601
  76. Salehi, S., & Pazokinejad, Z. (2013). Environment in higher education: Assessment of environmental knowledge of students of Mazandaran state universities. Journal of Educational Planning Studies, 2(4), 199–221. [In Persian]. 
  77. Segalàs, J. (2009). Engineering education for a sustainable future [Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya]. TDX (Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa). http://hdl.handle.net/10803/7657
  78. Sharifian, Sh., Sarmadi, M. R., & Shobeiri, S. M. (2010). Assessing the needs and determining the educational priorities of middle school students and teachers in the field of environment. Environmental Science and Technology, 12(4), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.22099/jcr.2018.4955 [in Persian]. 
  79. Stones, Rob (2002), Great Thinkers in Sociology, translated by Mehrad Mirdamadi, Markaz Publications. [In Persian]. 
  80. UNESCO. (1996). Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century.
  81. UNESCO. (2009). Learning for a sustainable world: Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development 2009. Section for DESD Coordination, Division for the Coordination of United Nations Priorities in Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000181627
  82. Uslu, B. (2020). A path for ranking success: What does the expanded indicator-set of international university rankings suggest? Higher Education, 80 (5), 949–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00526-1
  83. Veisani, M., Gholamali Lavasani, M., & Ejei, J. (2012). The role of achievement goals, academic motivation and learning strategies on statistical anxiety: Testing a causal model, Psychology, 16, (2). 142-160. [In Persian]. 
  84. Vorley, T. (2008). Conceptualising the academy: Institutional development of and beyond the third mission. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20 (3), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v20-art25-en
  85. Waheed, B., Khan, F. I., Veitch, B., & Hawboldt, K. (2011). Uncertainty-based quantitative assessment of sustainability for higher education institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (6–7), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.013
  86. Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2007). Cultural capital. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc070
  87. Yildiz, N., Yilmaz, H., Demir, M., & Toy, S. (2011). Effects of personal characteristics on environmental awareness; a questionnaire survey with university campus people in a developing country, Turkey. Scientific Research and Essays, 6 (2), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE10.719
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 24
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 15





سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب