IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5306-d551405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nature Ideas Exchange: Education of Sustainable Business Principles Based on Parallels with Forest Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Karolina Macháčková

    (Department of Forestry and Wood Economics, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká129, Praha 6 - Suchdol, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Jiří Zelený

    (Department of Hospitality Management, Institute of Hospitality Management in Prague, Svídnická 506, 182 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Dana Kolářová

    (Department of Languages, Institute of Hospitality Management, Svídnická 506, 506, 182 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Zbyněk Vinš

    (Department of Hospitality Management, Institute of Hospitality Management in Prague, Svídnická 506, 182 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Arne Næss considered nature the best source of knowledge and regarded the economists as morally responsible for the ecological crisis. Therefore, this research focused on students of economic fields at the university level. The experimental group ( n = 236) led by a teacher-as-researcher completed a Business Economic course by forest workshops for one semester because the sustainability principles can be very well explained and observed on examples of forest fauna and flora and then applied in managerial practice. Many similarities were found between forest and business principles (optimal growth rate, teamwork, cooperation models, parasitism). This paper aimed to identify if students’ proficiency in applying sustainable mindset from a forest ecosystem to practice increased. The achievement test compared outcomes of the experimental and control group ( n = 190) of students. Based on statistical testing, it can be stated that the experimental intervention led to better results compared to the control group. For issues in which no suitable parallel with the forest ecosystem was found and were therefore explained according to the textbook, group (E) did not perform better than group (C). The methodology is based on qualitative and quantitative research, a mixed-methods approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Karolina Macháčková & Jiří Zelený & Dana Kolářová & Zbyněk Vinš, 2021. "Nature Ideas Exchange: Education of Sustainable Business Principles Based on Parallels with Forest Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5306-:d:551405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5306/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5306/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leire Agirreazkuenaga, 2019. "Embedding Sustainable Development Goals in Education. Teachers’ Perspective about Education for Sustainability in the Basque Autonomous Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    2. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    3. Sue L. T. McGregor, 2013. "Alternative Communications about Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Masami Nakagawa, 2019. "Trust in sustainable natural resource development," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(6), pages 542-542, June.
    5. Becker, William E & Johnston, Carol, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 348-357, December.
    6. Ashley Finlayson & Karine Markewitz & Jean-Marc Frayret, 2014. "Postsecondary Education in Industrial Ecology Across the World," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(6), pages 931-941, December.
    7. William B. Walstad & Denise Robson, 1997. "Differential Item Functioning and Male-Female Differences on Multiple-Choice Tests in Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 155-171, June.
    8. Chung-Ting Pan & Shih-Jang Hsu, 2020. "Effects of a One-day Environmental Education Program on Sixth-Graders’ Environmental Literacy at a Nature Center in Eastern Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Per Sund & Jonas Greve Lysgaard, 2013. "Reclaim “Education” in Environmental and Sustainability Education Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-19, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    2. Christine Jonick & Jennifer Schneider & Daniel Boylan, 2017. "The effect of accounting question response formats on student performance," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 291-315, July.
    3. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    4. Neal Arthur & Patricia Everaert, 2012. "Gender and Performance in Accounting Examinations: Exploring the Impact of Examination Format," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 471-487, October.
    5. Ambrose & Cheryl A. Kier, 2017. "On Students’ Perception of a Multi-Scheme Assessment Method," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 17(1), pages 40-52, Spring.
    6. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.
    7. Tang, Tommy, 2023. "Approach to learning for assessment in economics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 571-584.
    8. Nixon Chan & Peter E. Kennedy, 2002. "Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 957-971, April.
    9. Thompson, Alexi S. & Jager, Abigail L. & Burton, Robert O., Jr., 2012. "Do Men and Women Perform Differently on Different Types of Test Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119771, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Melanie A. Fennell & Irene R. Foster, 2021. "Test Format and Calculator Use in the Testing of Basic Math Skills for Principles of Economics: Experimental Evidence," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 66(1), pages 29-45, March.
    12. Mallik, Girijasankar & Shankar, Sriram, 2016. "Does prior knowledge of economics and higher level mathematics improve student learning in principles of economics?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 66-73.
    13. Stephen Hickson, 2016. "Maybe the Boys Just Like Economics More - The Gender Gap and the Role of Personality Type in Economics Education," Working Papers in Economics 16/07, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    14. P. Everaert & N. Arthur, 2012. "Constructed-response versus multiple choice: the impact on performance in combination with gender," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/777, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    15. Tim Kaiser & Luis Oberrauch & Günther Seeber, 2020. "Measuring economic competence of secondary school students in Germany," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3-4), pages 227-242, August.
    16. Leire Agirreazkuenaga, 2020. "Education for Agenda 2030: What Direction do We Want to Take Going Forward?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Edward M. Scahill, 2006. "Evaluation of the Training the Trainers Programme. What Did Trainers Know? What Did They Learn?," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 5(2), pages 9-28.
    18. David Sabiston & Ambrose Leung & Gianfranco Terrazzano, 2017. "Learning styles and performance in principles of economics: does the gender gap exist?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2935-2944.
    19. Roger B. Butters & Carlos J. Asarta & Tammie J. Fischer, 2011. "Human Capital in The Classroom: The Role of Teacher Knowledge in Economic Literacy," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(2), pages 47-57, November.
    20. Delfín Ortega-Sánchez & Almudena Alonso-Centeno & Miguel Corbí, 2020. "Socio-Environmental Problematic, End-Purposes, and Strategies Relating to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) through the Perspectives of Spanish Secondary Education Trainee Teachers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-10, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5306-:d:551405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.