569 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Education and Training Vol. 6, No. 3, 569-582, 2020 ISSN(E) 2519-5387 DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2020.63.569.582 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Examining the Water Literacy Levels of High School Students According to Some Variables Ufuk SÖZCÜ1 Abdullah TÜRKER2 ( Corresponding Author) 1Kastamonu Science High School, Turkey. 2Gazi University, Gazi Education Faculty, Department of Geography Education, Turkey. Abstract As the world population increases, the issue of using freshwater resources efficiently becomes more important. Using water, which is an indispensable resource for life, consciously and sustainably, to be sensitive, in short, to be water literate is a necessity for all citizens of the world. Turkey is a country living water scarcity. Therefore, it is a country where water literacy studies should conduct. As it is the first comprehensive study of water literacy in Turkey, the present study becomes significant in the field. This study aims to determine the water literacy levels of high school students in Turkey. In the present study, Data was gathered through the Water Literacy Questionnaire. The Water Literacy Questionnaire was designed by Sözcü and Türker (2020) and consists of three sections. The questionnaire was applied to 3202 high school students living in different regions. As a result of the study, the water literacy of high school students was at 'Good Level' in general. When the sub-dimensions of water literacy were analyzed, high school students were very good at water-saving and good at water sensitivity, but remain at medium level in terms of water consciousness. In light of the results, some recommendations have been made to increase water literacy. Keywords: Water-saving, Water sensitivity, Water consciousness, Water literacy, High school students. Citation | Ufuk SÖZCÜ; Abdullah TÜRKER (2020). Examining the Water Literacy Levels of High School Students According to Some Variables. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 6(3): 569- 582. History: Received: 7 July 2020 Revised: 14 August 2020 Accepted: 31 August 2020 Published: 9 September 2020 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 570 2. Material and Methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 572 3. Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 574 4. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 579 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 581 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.522.2020.63.569.582&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/2119 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6809-4774 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3839-2735 Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 570 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature This study aims to determine the water literacy levels of high school students in Turkey. 1. Introduction “What is the most important factor for the continuity of all living or inanimate beings on the planet we live in and to be passed on to future generations?” the vast majority of people will respond as "water". Water is of great importance for the continuation of life. As a result of the hydrological cycle, the water circulating between the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. Although it is considered an infinite resource by most because it occupies two-thirds of the globe, this is not the case. The total amount of water on Earth is 1.2 billion km3. Salty waters in seas and oceans, which are not suitable for direct drinking and agricultural irrigation, constitute 97.5% of this amount. The distribution of water on the Earth's surface is extremely uneven. Only 3% of the water on the surface is fresh; the remaining 97% resides in the ocean. Of freshwater, 79% (2.39% of total water assets) reside in glaciers, 20% (0.6% of total water asset) underground, and less than 1% (0.03% of the total water asset) is on the surface and atmospheric waters. Data prepared by the United Nations (2007) show that there is an imbalance in the availability of freshwater, which is already very limited. 36% of the available water resources in the world are distributed to Asia, 25% to South America, 15% to North America, 11% to Africa, 8% to Europe and 5% to Oceania. The fact that the highest proportion of the Asian continent accommodates 60% of the world population reveals the insufficiency of the water potential. If the total available water in the world is distributed equally to the world population, there will be 5000- 6000 m3 of water per person per year. Falkenmark, Lundqvist, and Widstrand (1989) introduced an indicator (The Falkenmark Water Stress Indicator) for water stress that expresses the level of water scarcity in a certain region as the amount of renewable freshwater that is available for each person each year. According to the Falkenmark Water Stress Indicator, if the amount of renewable water in a country is above 1,700 m3 per person per year, water scarcity is rare or only in certain areas. If the amount of renewable water in a country is below 1,700 m3 per person per year, that country is said to be experiencing water stress; below 1,000 m3 it is said to be experiencing water scarcity; and below 500 m3, absolute water scarcity. According to the UN (2012) report, while 1 billion people in the world live below the water stress limit, approximately one-fifth of the World population has difficulties to access healthy drinking water. It is estimated that by 2025, about 3 billion people will experience water scarcity. Increasing global temperature averages along with the increase in the world population and the decrease of freshwater resources due to misuse of water, raise concerns that if future generations may reach clean water. In Turkey, where the population growth rate is still above the world average, the water amount per person per year is falling steadily. According to The General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (SHW) (2020) data, the annual amount of water per person, which was 1652 m3 in 2000, decreased to 1544 m3 in 2009 and 1346 m3 in 2020. Local sources and dense population qualify Turkey as a water-rich country. Hence, referring to official data, Turkey is a country suffering from water shortage. It is clear that it is in danger of being included among the countries considered as “water-poor (Aksay, Ketenoğlu, & Latif, 2005; Karadağ, 2008; Muluk et al., 2013). According to data from Turkey Statistical Institute (TSI), the amount of water available per person in Turkey expected to decrease 1120 m3 / year in 2030. This expectation may be valid if available resources are not adversely affected by 2030. In other words, to leave clean and potable water to future generations, water resources must be well protected and rationally managed (Türkyılmaz, 2010). When the usable water potential per capita in Turkey evaluated according to ‘The Falkenmark Water Stress Indicator’, Turkey is among the countries of water stress/pressure. This situation reveals the importance of saving water and the conscious use of water. The success of the work done in the conscious use of water and conservation by the government in Turkey is significant. Also, the approach of individuals and the steps is essential for sustainable water use. For this reason, building a society that has high water sensitivity, conscious about water, and supports the steps taken by the state in terms of water-saving will also provide significant advantages. In a society of individuals with a high level of water literacy, the steps that the state should take in terms of efficient use and savings of water resources will be much simpler. Although the concept of literacy was previously used only for people who can read and write or included in the education system, today, its meaning broadened further. It was defined as the ability to perform various mental operations (understanding, explanation, description, interpretation, association, etc.) on a subject, event, or phenomenon using visual, literary materials. As stated in the study published by UNESCO (2006) the concept of literacy, which was expressed only as alphabet literacy before 1950, has reached its current definition after the UNESCO general conference in 1978. In the late 1980s, the definition of literacy developed in line with the developments in globalization and information-communication technologies. In the 1987 Toronto seminar, it was emphasized that the concept of literacy is more than literacy and computation. According to Ahmed (2011) literacy is a process that includes the continuous learning of individuals, enables them to reach their personal goals, increases their knowledge and potential, and takes an active place in society. The importance of water for life is increasing day by day. Therefore, water literacy needs to take its place on the agenda for water use, protection, and sustainability to future generations. There is a need for individuals and society who have basic knowledge about water, have a positive attitude towards water, and transform it into a lifestyle. Topics such as having high knowledge and awareness of water, being a pioneer in water-saving and sustainable use of water, having a positive attitude and behavior towards water are also expressed as water literacy. Every year, TUBITAK (Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey) organizes research projects competition for high school and middle school students. Water literacy was included in the TUBITAK 2020 competition project guide. In the project guide prepared by the institution, water literacy and water literate individual was defined as follows. “Water literacy is the ability of individuals to understand about water, water resources, and basic information on all topics covering water, sustainable use of water, water management, the importance and necessity of water for life. Also, ones' ability to find solutions to problems encountered by using scientific information about water and to clarify them is called water literacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 571 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Individuals who know how to distribute and treat daily water, as well as maintaining the quality and safety of the water, and knowing how much water is used and exactly what it is used for are called water literate (TÜBİTAK, 2020). Dinç (2018) defines water literacy as an awareness and responsibility that allows individuals with general knowledge about water to know and predict in which situations water will suffer. Sammel and McMartin (2014) states that water literate individuals are calculating the individual water footprint, taking into account in daily life and operating on the sustainable use of water. According to Xu, Wang, Wang, and Zhang (2019) water knowledge and water attitude are the main factors affecting citizens' water behavior. Water attitude consists of three dimensions: the sense of water, water responsibility, and water ethics. It will be easier to increase the water literacy levels of individuals with a positive water attitude. If water literacy is categorized, it is gathered under three titles, which are the continuation and development of each other: practical water literacy, live water literacy, and social water literacy. Having safe water that is vital for all beings on the planet, distinguishing unhealthy water, and understanding the importance of water in daily life can be considered as practical water literacy. Live water literacy is the ability to control water recycling processes by using necessary and sufficient amount of water at home and in social life. Social water literacy refers to the willingness to act responsibly and make reasonable decisions for society as a whole in terms of water usage (Otaki, Sakura, & Otaki, 2015). Some curriculum studies have been carried out by several researchers to increase the number of water literate individuals (Brody, 1995; Covitt, Gunckel, & Anderson, 2009). The first program framework for water educators, scientists, and resource managers was prepared by Brody (1995). Within the framework of water education carried out by Brody (1995) attention was drawn to the concept-skill-interaction relationship by drawing attention to the interdisciplinary quality of water. Covitt et al. (2009) based on Brody (1995) developed a framework based on establishing connections from different angles which will include natural and human engineering systems, to improve water literacy starting from atoms and molecules. With the “International Water Literacy Symposium (Wheeler, 2012) held at International Christian University in Tokyo in September 2012, studies on water literacy have increased and water literacy has begun to be handled from different perspectives. Wood (2014) conducted a comprehensive doctoral thesis study, including a questionnaire, focus group discussions and observations at schools, about reviewing current water education and water literacy in East Midlands, England. Hui-Shuang He (2018) was conducted a study with 303 people between the ages of 6-69 to determine the water literacy levels in four different regions of China. Wang, Chang, and Liou (2019) conducted a study that aims to determine the change in levels of water literacy before and after participation in water conservation activities of 620 participants over the age of 18. Moreno-Guerrero, Romero-Rodríguez, López- Belmonte, and Alonso-García (2020) applied ten sessions of 55 minutes each with four groups of 30 participants in the first year of middle-school to investigate the impact of flipped learning practices in the development of water literacy. Hui-Shuang He (2018) argues that water literacy level should be high for a society that saves water, concerned about the future of water, and participates in activities. Hui-Shuang He (2018) stated that water behavior is at the center of the water literacy scale he developed. In their study, Sherchan et al. (2016) stated that courses on water literacy are needed to compensate students' lack of basic knowledge about water. They planned the content of the course as in Figure 1 stating that water literacy courses may be organized with a multi-disciplinary approach to inform the public about water, which is indispensable for life today and the future, and to build a water literate society. Figure 1. Learning components and performance evaluation in an interdisciplinary course implementation model on water literacy. Source: Sherchan et al. (2016). Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 572 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group As can be seen in Figure 1, if a course or lesson will be organized for the development of water literacy, it is impossible to achieve this with a single discipline. A multi-disciplinary approach is required for an element that affects all life and activities, such as water. Forbes, Brozović, Franz, Lally, and Petitt (2018) determined that after the multidisciplinary courses, undergraduate students increased their knowledge about water. This result reveals the importance of the multidisciplinary approach. In this context, "Water Ambassadors Training and Awareness Raising Technical Support Project" has been prepared. Students, teachers, and mothers were determined as the target audience. The project carried out by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization and funded by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey. To increase water awareness many activities were organized within the scope of the project. These activities include preparing cartoons, organizing stage shows with the participation of expert guests under the title of causes of water, and conducting teacher training. Also, by training the project partner institutions staff, Ministry of National Education (MNE), and State Hydraulic Works (SHW) activities were organized to raise awareness of more than 40,000 people in water and environment in pilot regions (URL-1, URL-2). Similarly, it is planned to reach pre-school, primary, and secondary school students in 19 pilot provinces between 2019-2021 with the 'Water Ambassadors in Education' project, which was carried out in partnership with MNE Directorate-General for Basic Education and SHW. Within the scope of the project, it is aimed to increase the sensitivity and awareness of students about the water crisis in the world and our country, the correct use of water, and savings in water consumption (URL-3). All of the mentioned studies have great importance and value to reach a society where water literate individuals are the majority and to leave healthy and accessible water for future generations. Maclean and Bana (2015) emphasizes the need for regulations (policies, plans, appropriate stakeholder engagement approaches) that can integrate various information, values , and interests to decision making to ensure sustainable water management. Education should be at the center of these regulations. Starting from the fact that education starts in the family, parents also have a significant duty in reaching the water literate community goals. As the role model, the role of our parents, people who shape our many attitudes and behaviors in our lives is significant. Formal education institutions also have a great role in the education of parents. To reach a water literate society, it is essential to have a comprehensive water education from pre-school education, which is the first level of formal education, to high school education, which is the last level of compulsory education in Turkey, even in all departments in university education. In their study, Ursavaş and Aytar (2018) emphasized the importance of giving information about the basic concepts of water, especially in the pre-school period. From the very beginning of the education and training processes, understanding the basic information about water and the qualities related to the structure of the water is essential to achieve the goal of reaching the society consisting of water literate individuals. In this process, as a role model, all branch teachers have an important duty in transferring knowledge. Among all branches, social studies and science courses at secondary school level and geography and biology courses at high school level are more significant due to their scope. In addition to the teachers, these objectives might also be considered in the preparation of the curriculums and textbooks of some courses. In connection with all these, the high school period is seen as a period in which students make great progress in becoming a society-compatible individual and gaining their social sensitivity and clarifying their status. The effects of the education given until the end of the high school period on individuals and society will be more permanent in terms of habituation and being an example. For this reason, it is essential to determine the water consciousness, water-saving, and water sensitivity levels of students in the high school period. In this way, it will be possible to examine the results of the education that the students receive about water until high school education. The results are expected to guide the ministry in planning the curriculums and in the activities to be organized. In this regard, this study aims to determine the water literacy level of high school students from different regions of Turkey. Finally, the research questions that guided the study were: RQ1: What are the water literacy levels of high school students? RQ2: Do high school students’ water consciousness, water-saving and water sensitivities significantly differ according to the; Gender, school type, region they live in, grade level, GPA, mother, and father education levels, knowing an institution related to water and participating in the water-related activity? 2. Material and Methods 2.1. Research Model The research was designed in the screening model, which is the most used model in the social sciences. A screening model is a research approach that aims to describe either the past or the present situation as it exists. In the screening model, without changing the events, objects and individuals, and making an experimental intervention to them, individuals' beliefs, attitudes, opinions, behaviors, expectations, and characteristics of a particular phenomenon or event aimed to determine by asking questions such as what, where, how often, at what level, how, with the help of surveys (Büyüköztürk, Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz, & Demirel, 2014; Gürbüz & Şahin, 2016; Karakaya, 2011; Karasar, 2012). As it aimed to describe the water literacy of high school students as they exist, the "instant screening" model was used among the screening models. 2.2. Study Group High school students in Turkey were the universe of the study. The sample of the study was 3202 high school students (9th-10th-11th. and 12th grade) selected from within Turkey overall. The purposeful sampling method, is a form of non-probability sampling, was chosen as the sampling method. The purpose of purposeful sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study (Patton, 1990). Purposeful sampling requires access to key informants in the field who can help in identifying information-rich cases (Suri, 2011). In the selection of 3202 high school students across Turkey, maximum variation sampling was preferred. Regarding the problem examined in maximum variation sampling, it is possible to determine the different situations in itself and to conduct the study on these situations (Büyüköztürk et al., 2014). A maximum variation Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 573 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group sample is constructed by identifying key dimensions of variations and then finding cases that vary from each other as much as possible. This sampling yields: "(1) high quality, detailed descriptions of each case, which are useful for documenting uniqueness, and (2) important shared patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity (Patton., 2002). The evaluator using a maximum variation sampling strategy would not be attempting to generalize findings to all people or all groups but would be looking for information that elucidates programmatic variation and significant common patterns within that variation (Patton, 1990). Level 1 (NUTS 1 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) regional classification determined by TSI (Turkey Statistical Institute) taken as a basis in determining the maximum variation sample. These regions determined in 2002 within the framework of European Union harmonization. Figure 2 shows this region classification. Figure-2. TSI Turkey level-1 statistical area classification. Source: The map was created according to the TSI classification. As can be seen in Figure 2 Turkey divided into 12 regions according to Level-1. According to the population of these regions, the number of participants included in the study changes due to reasons such as accessibility and economy. In this context, personal information of high school students included in the study is given in Table 1. Table-1. Information about participants. Variables n % n % Gender Female Male Mother Education Level Illiterate Primary School High School University Postgraduate 2192 68.5 221 6.9 1010 31.5 1739 54.3 Grade Level 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade 753 23.5 727 22.7 431 13.5 1017 31.8 58 1.8 754 23.5 Father Education Level Illiterate Primary School High School University Postgraduate 704 22.0 41 1.3 School Type* Project public school Public school without exam Private school 1292 40.3 1787 55.8 1058 33.0 1093 34.1 665 20.8 322 10.1 146 4.6 Region** Istanbul Grade Average 50-60 61-75 76-90 91-100 411 12.8 279 8.7 West Marmara 91 2.8 752 23.5 Aegean 260 8.1 1461 45.6 Mediterranean 269 8.4 710 22.2 West Anatolia 590 18.4 Knowing the institution name Yes No East Marmara 209 6.5 2338 73.0 West Black Sea 455 14.2 864 27.0 Central Anatolia 310 9.7 Participate in activities on water Yes No East Black Sea 153 4.8 488 15.2 Northeast Anatolia 90 2.8 2714 84.8 Middle East Anatolia 130 4.1 Southeastern Anatolia 234 7.3 Total 3202 100 Total 3202 100 Note: **Regulated to Level-1 in the regional classification created by TSI. *Some high schools in Turkey accept students according to the high school entrance exam (project schools), while some are accepting students without examination. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 574 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group As can be seen in Table 1 68.5% (n = 2192) of the students in the study group are female and 31.5% (n = 1010) are male. It is noteworthy that, according to the grade levels of the students, they were distributed close to each other, 55.8% of the participants' study in project schools, 34.1% in schools that take students without examination, 10.1% in private schools. When the distribution of students' cities according to their regions examined, Istanbul, West Anatolia, and West Black Sea regions have the highest rates while regions with a low population such as Northeast Anatolia and West Marmara have the lowest rates. Students' grade point averages were mostly within the range of 76-90 points (45.6%) and at least 51-60 (8.7%). 2.3. Data Gathering "Water Literacy Survey" designed by Sözcü and Türker (2020) was used as a data collection tool in the study. The survey consists of two parts. The first part consists of questions that to be determinative on high school students' water literacy. In the second part, there was a water literacy scale. The scale consists of 3 sub-dimensions called water saving, water consciousness, and water sensitivity. Water-saving sub-dimension consists of 13 items, water consciousness sub-dimension consists of 12 items, and water sensitivity sub-dimension consists of 5 items. The scale consists of 30 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). In the scale, 25 items have positive expressions, and five items have negative expressions. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is '30' and the highest score is '150'. Cronbach Alpha reliability value of the scale was found to be .894. Data on the scale, which has reliable and good substance characteristics, were collected online from high school students voluntarily in May 2020. The online questionnaire was prepared on Google forms and delivered to the students by sharing the link address and through their teachers. 2.4. Data Analysis The data were processed and analyzed using SPSS 20 software. Since the data was collected through an online questionnaire, no lost data occurred. Five items that have negative expressions were entered into the program by the reverse coding method. The normality of the processed 3202 data was analyzed graphically (Histogram and stem-leaf graph, normal Q-Q graph, box graph) and the coefficient of kurtosis and skewness. The normality of variables assessed by either statistical or graphical methods (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The kurtosis and distortion values of the data, which are compatible with the graphical method, were also examined. In a large sample, a variable with statistically significant skewness often does not deviate enough from normality to make a substantive difference in the analysis. In other words, with large samples, the significance level of skewness is not as important as its actual size (worse the farther from zero) and the visual appearance of the distribution. In a large sample, the impact of departure from zero kurtoses also diminishes. For example, underestimates of variance associated with positive kurtosis (distributions with short, thick tails) disappear with samples of 100 or more cases; with negative kurtosis, underestimation of variance disappears with samples of 200 or more (Waternaux, 1976, cite. Tabachnick and Fidell (2013)). In this context, the kurtosis and skewness coefficients of the data are in the reference range. After providing normality conditions, scale averages, and the equivalence of these averages in the hundred point system were used to determine the water literacy level of high school students. As seen in Table 2 the scale average classified as; strongly disagree 1 point, strongly disagree – disagree 1-2 intervals, disagree – neutral 2-3 intervals, neutral – agree 3-4 intervals, agree – strongly agree 4-5 intervals, strongly agree 5 points. The rating used by the Ministry of Education was used as the equivalent of the scale averages in the hundred point system (Example: Water Awareness scale average: 3.32 * 100/5 = 66.2 points average). Accordingly, 0-49 points failed, 50-59 points pass, 60-69 points are moderate, 70-84 points are good, and 85-100 points are very good. In the next step, the relationship between the independent variables and the water literacy sub-dimensions was determined with which tests to test. Independent sample t-test was used to find the differences between the variables such as gender status, participation in water activity, and the institution name knowing status variables and the sub-dimensions of the scale (when variances are not equal). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed in cases where the independent variable consists of three or more categories (school type, class level, region, grade point average, mother, and father education level). In cases where the homogeneous distribution of variances provided, Scheffe, which is one of the multiple comparison tests (Post Hoc Test), and Tamhane’s T2 test was applied when not provided. 3. Findings This section presents the findings of the data obtained within the framework of the research problem and sub- problems. Findings for each sub-problem are presented in tables and explained. Table 2 shows the findings of the water literacy levels of high school students. Table-2. Water literacy levels of high school students according to scale average and scores. Water-saving Water consciousness Water sensitivity S ca le e x p re ss io n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 S tr o n g ly d is ag re e D is ag re e N eu tr al A g re e S tr o n g ly a g re e S tr o n g ly d is ag re e D is ag re e N eu tr al A g re e S tr o n g ly a g re e S tr o n g ly d is ag re e D is ag re e N eu tr al A g re e S tr o n g ly a g re e 4,44 3,32 3,95 Agree-Strongly agree Neutral-Agree Neutral-Agree Points Value: 88,8 (Very Good) Points Value: 66,4 (Moderate) Points Value: 79,0 (Good) Scale average:3,91 (Neutral-Agree) Average score:78,2 (Good) Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 575 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group The scale averages according to the 5-point Likert scale, and the equivalents of these averages in a hundred point system are given in Table 2. Accordingly, the scale average in the water-saving sub-dimension of the scale was at the level of agree-strongly agree, and its response in terms of points was 88.8. Scale averages of water consciousness and water sensitivity sub-dimensions were at the level of neutral - agree. However, while the average score of the water consciousness sub-dimension was 66.4, the average score of the water sensitivity sub- dimension was 79. While the overall average of the scale was in the neutral-agree range, the average score was 78.2. The findings of the t-test conducted to determine whether the water literacy of high school students make a significant difference for gender are given in Table 3. Table-3. Analysis of high school students' water literacy according to gender variable. Scale Gender N X̅ Ss Sd t p Water-saving Female 2192 58.32 5.72 3200 8.06 .000* Male 1010 56.46 6.74 Water consciousness Female 2192 40.09 8.52 3200 1.85 .064 Male 1010 39.46 9.80 Water sensitivity Female 2192 20.13 3.80 3200 7.62 .000* Male 1010 18.94 4.71 General Female 2192 118.5 13.59 3200 6.87 .000* Male 1010 114.8 15.04 As can be seen in Table 3, there was a significant effect of gender on high school students' water literacy overall scores [t(3200)= 6.82, p<0.05]. Likewise, the scores of high school students on the water-saving [t(3200)= 8.06, p<0.05] and water sensitivity [t (3200)=7.62, p<0.05] sub-dimensions were also differ significantly according to gender. However, water consciousness sub-dimension scores were not differ significantly by gender [t(3200)=1.85, p<0.05]. In other words, while the gender of high school students caused a significant difference in their water savings, water consciousness, and general status of water literacy, they did not make a significant difference in their water sensitivity. One-Way ANOVA results of water literacy according to the grade levels of high school students are given in Table 4. Table4. One-way ANOVA results of water literacy according to grade levels of high school students. Scale Grade Level N X̅ S F p Significant Difference (Scheffe Test) Water-saving 1. Grade 9 727 57.46 6.07 6.52 .000* 1-4 2-4 3-4 2. Grade 10 1017 57.64 6.38 3. Grade 11 754 57.32 6.44 4. Grade 12 704 58.61 5.30 Total 3202 57.74 6.12 Water consciousness 1. Grade 9 727 40.45 9.08 1.28 .277 2. Grade 10 1017 39.82 8.81 3. Grade 11 754 39.67 9.09 4. Grade 12 704 39.65 8.83 Total 3202 39.89 8.94 Water sensitivity 1. Grade 9 727 19.51 4.35 2,67 .051 2. Grade 10 1017 20.03 4.02 3. Grade 11 754 19.62 4.26 4. Grade 12 704 19.77 3.97 Toplam 3202 19.76 4.15 General 1. Grade 9 727 117.4 14.38 1.26 .285 2. Grade 10 1017 117.5 14.47 3. Grade 11 754 116.6 14.43 4. Grade 12 704 118.0 13.16 Total 3202 117.3 14.17 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 4, high school students' water literacy overall scores did not differ significantly according to the grade levels they are studying [F(3,3198)=1,26, p>0,05]. Likewise, water consciousness [F(3,3198)=1,28, p>0,05] and water sensitivity [F (3,3198) =2,67, p>0,05] scores were not differ significantly in terms of students' grade levels. However, there was a significant difference in students' water-saving scores according to their grade levels [F (3,3198) =6,52, p <0,05]. Post hoc analyses using the Scheffé post hoc criterion for significance indicated that the water-saving average score of students was significantly lower in the 12th-grade (X̅= 5,30) than in the 9th-10th, and 11th grade respectively (X̅= 6.07 / 6.38 / 6.44). Table 5 shows the results of the One-Way ANOVA test of water literacy according to the mother education levels of high school students. As can be seen in Table 5, results indicated a non-significant relation between students’ water literacy scores and students’ mother’s educational background [F(4,3197)=1,03, p>0,05]. However, there was a significant effect of mother’s educational background on water-saving [F(4,3197) =3,41, p<0,05], water consciousness [F(4,3197)=4,64, p<0,05], and water sensitivity [F(4,3197)=1,03, p<0,05] sub-dimensions of the scale. Post hoc analyses using the Scheffé post hoc criterion for significance indicated that the water-saving and water sensitivity average scores of students was significantly higher in the undergraduate level of mothers’ education (X̅=58,47/20,67) than in the illiterate level of mothers’ education (X̅=56,69/18,76). Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 576 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Table-5. One-way ANOVA results of water literacy according to mother's education levels of high school students. Scale Mother’s Educational Background N X̅ S F p Significant Difference (Scheffe Test) Water-saving 1. Illiterate 221 56.69 6.89 3.41 .009* 1-4 2. Primary School 1739 57.64 6.11 3. High School 753 57.88 5.87 4. Undergraduate 431 58.47 5.46 5. Postgraduate 58 57.43 9.65 Total 3202 57.74 6.12 Water consciousness 1. Illiterate 221 40.96 9.48 4.64 .001* 1-4 2. Primary School 1739 40.14 8.64 3. High School 753 39.51 9.33 4. Undergraduate 431 38.66 8.88 5. Postgraduate 58 42.39 9.97 Total 3202 40.96 8.94 Water sensitivity 1. Illiterate 221 18.76 4.55 9,18 .000* 1-4 2. Primary School 1739 19.66 4.10 3. High School 753 19.70 4.27 4. Undergraduate 431 20.67 3.60 5. Postgraduate 58 20.44 5.00 Total 3202 19.76 4.15 General 1. Illiterate 221 116.4 14.82 1.03 .386 2. Primary School 1739 117.4 13.84 3. High School 753 117.1 14.47 4. Undergraduate 431 117.8 13.72 5. Postgraduate 58 120.2 19.50 Total 3202 117.3 14.17 Note: *p<0.05. On the other hand, in the water consciousness sub-dimension, the scores of high school students whose mother was illiterate (X̅=40.96) were significantly higher than the scores of those whose mothers were university graduates (X̅=38.66). One-Way ANOVA results of water literacy according to the father education levels of high school students are given in Table 6. Table-6. One-way ANOVA results of water literacy according to father education levels of high school students. Scale Father’s Educational Background N X̅ S F p Significant Difference (Scheffe Test) Water-saving 1. Illiterate 41 56.26 7.29 3.07 .015* 2-4 2. Primary School 1292 57.44 6.39 3. High School 1058 57.73 6.16 4. Undergraduate 665 58.28 5.07 5. Postgraduate 146 58.39 7.07 Total 3202 57.74 6.12 Water consciousness 1. Illiterate 41 39.92 9.36 2.76 .026* 2-4 2. Primary School 1292 40.33 8.99 3. High School 1058 39.91 8.73 4. Undergraduate 665 38.93 8.96 5. Postgraduate 146 40.15 9.65 Total 3202 39.89 8.94 Water sensitivity 1. Illiterate 41 18.82 4.66 9.41 .000* 2-3 2-4 2. Primary School 1292 19.32 4.25 3. High School 1058 19.83 4.10 4. Undergraduate 665 20.47 3.80 5. Postgraduate 146 20.11 4.43 Total 3202 19.76 4.15 General 1. Illiterate 41 115.0 16.04 0.78 .533 2. Primary School 1292 117.1 14.28 3. High School 1058 117.4 13.99 4. Undergraduate 665 117.6 13.59 5. Postgraduate 146 118.6 16.38 Total 3202 117.3 14.17 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 6 results indicated a non-significant relation between students’ water literacy scores and students’ father’s educational background [F(4,3197)=0,78, p>0,05]. However, there was a significant effect of father’s educational background on water-saving [F(4,3197)=3,07,p<0,05], water consciousness [F(4,3197)=2,76, p<0,05], and water sensitivity [F(4,3197)=9,41, p<0,05] sub-dimensions of the scale. Post hoc analyses using the Scheffé post hoc criterion for significance indicated that the water-saving and water sensitivity average scores of students was significantly higher in the high school level of fathers’ education (X̅=58,28/20,47) than in the primary school level of fathers’ education (X̅=57,44/19,32). On the other hand, in the water consciousness sub-dimension, Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 577 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group the scores of high school students whose father was primary school graduate (X̅=40,33) were significantly higher than the scores of those whose fathers were university graduates (X̅=38,93). One-Way ANOVA results of water literacy according to grade point averages (GPA) of high school students are given in Table 7. Table-7. One-way ANOVA results of water literacy according to grade averages of high school students. Scale Grade Point Average N X̅ S F p Significant Difference (Scheffe Test) Water-saving 1.50-60 279 55.84 6.70 29.44 .000* 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 2.61-75 752 56.52 7.57 3.76-90 1461 58.20 5.20 4.91-100 710 58.80 5.36 Total 3202 55.84 6.12 Water consciousness 1.50-60 279 40.27 9.25 0.36 .782 2.61-75 752 39.66 9.14 3.76-90 1461 39.95 8.85 4.91-100 710 39.86 8.81 Total 3202 39.89 8.94 Water sensitivity 1.50-60 279 17.37 4.80 74.77 .000* 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4 2.61-75 752 18.68 4.40 3.76-90 1461 20.26 3.73 4.91-100 710 20.81 3.81 Total 3202 19.76 4.15 General 1.50-60 279 113.4 13.93 23.15 .000* 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 2.61-75 752 114.8 15.24 3.76-90 1461 118.4 13.80 4.91-100 710 119.4 13.14 Total 3202 117.3 14.17 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 7, there was a significant effect of GPA on high school students’ water literacy overall scores [F(3,3198)=23,15, p<0,05] and water-saving scores [F(3,3198)=29,44, p<0,05]. According to the Scheffe test for the direction of the significant difference; Water literacy general scores and water-saving scores respectively of high school students whose GPA were between 91-100 (X̅=119,4/58,80) were higher than those whose GPA was between 50-60 (X̅=113,4/55,84) and 61-75 (X̅=114,8/56,52). Likewise, water literacy general scores and water- saving scores respectively of high school students whose GPA was between 76-90 (X̅=118,4/58,20) were higher than those whose GPA was between 50-60 and 61-75. There was a significant difference in high school students’ water sensitivity scores according to their GPA [F(3,3198)=74,77, p<0,05]. Water sensitivity scores of the students whose GPA was between 91-100 and 76-90 (X̅=20,81/20,26), respectively, were higher than students whose GPA was between 50-60 and 61-75 (X̅=17,37/18,68). On the other hand, water consciousness scores did not differ significantly according to the GPA of high school students [F(3,3198)=0,36, p>0,05]. One-Way ANOVA results of water literacy according to the type of school high school students attend are given in Table 8. Table-8. One-Way ANOVA results of water literacy according to the type of school high school students attend. Scale School Type N X̅ S F p Significant Difference (Scheffe Test) Water-saving 1. Project public school 1787 57.85 6.38 5.23 .005* 2-3 2. Public school without exam 1093 57.33 5.97 3. Private school 322 58.50 4.90 Total 3202 55.84 6.12 Water consciousness 1. Project public school 1787 39.95 9.09 0.38 .679 2. Public school without exam 1093 39.91 8.76 3. Private school 322 39.48 8.79 Total 3202 39.95 8.94 Water sensitivity 1. Project public school 1787 19.92 4.20 8.73 .000* 1-2 2-3 2. Public school without exam 1093 19.35 4.13 3. Private school 322 20.24 3.81 Total 3202 19.92 4.15 General 1. Project public school 1787 117.7 14.57 2.76 .063 2. Public school without exam 1093 116.6 13.77 3. Private school 322 118.2 13.09 Total 3202 117.3 14.17 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 8 there was a significant difference in high school students’ water sensitivity [F(2,3199)=8,73,p<0,05] and water-saving [F(2,3199)=5,23, p<0,05] scores according to their school type. The significant difference was determined at students' water-saving and water sensitivity scores, respectively, students studying at the private school (X̅=58,50/19,92) and students studying at the schools accepting students without an examination (X̅ ̅=57,33/19,35). In addition, the average score of students studying in the project school in terms of Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 578 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group water sensitivity was higher than the average scores of those studying in schools accepting students without an examination. High school students' water literacy scores and water awareness scores do not make a significant difference according to the type of school they are studying [F(2,3199)=0,38,p>0,05]. The results of the One-Way ANOVA test of water literacy according to the region where high school students live are given in Table 9. Table-9. One-Way ANOVA results of water literacy according to the region where high school students live. Scale Regions N X̅ S F p Significant Difference (Scheffe Test) W at er -s av in g 1.Istanbul 411 57.60 5.15 2.26 .010* 4-9 2.West Marmara 91 57.96 4.82 3.Aegean 260 57.49 7.18 4.Mediterranean 269 56.60 8.86 5.West Anatolia 590 58.29 5.96 6.East Marmara 209 58.01 5.64 7.West Black Sea 455 57.70 5.38 8.Central Anatolia 310 58.00 5.66 9.East Black Sea 153 58.94 4.40 10.Northeast Anatolia 90 57.00 8.31 11.Middle East Anatolia 130 57.33 5.10 12.Southeastern Anatolia 234 57.14 6.06 Total 3202 57.74 6.12 W at er c o n sc io u sn es s 1.Istanbul 411 38.52 8.66 2.05 .020* 1-11 2.West Marmara 91 39.72 8.35 3.Aegean 260 40.10 8.58 4.Mediterranean 269 39.90 9.60 5.West Anatolia 590 40.12 9.12 6.East Marmara 209 39.63 8.24 7.West Black Sea 455 39.41 8.43 8.Central Anatolia 310 40.37 8.77 9.East Black Sea 153 40.48 10.2 10.Northeast Anatolia 90 39.18 8.79 11.Middle East Anatolia 130 41.83 9.44 12.Southeastern Anatolia 234 40.85 9.26 Total 3202 39.89 8.94 W at er s en si ti v it y 1.Istanbul 411 19.67 3.97 3.20 .000* 7-12 8-12 9-11 9-12 2.West Marmara 91 20.40 3.70 3.Aegean 260 20.05 3.89 4.Mediterranean 269 19.30 4.56 5.West Anatolia 590 19.74 4.37 6.East Marmara 209 20.11 3.65 7.West Black Sea 455 19.94 3.80 8.Central Anatolia 310 20.11 3.76 9.East Black Sea 153 20.37 4.29 10.Northeast Anatolia 90 20.06 3.23 11.Middle East Anatolia 130 18.73 4.84 12.Southeastern Anatolia 234 18.83 4.90 Total 3202 19.76 4.15 W at er L it er ac y ( G en er al ) 1.Istanbul 411 115.8 13.2 1.62 .085 2.West Marmara 91 118.0 12.7 3.Aegean 260 117.6 15.1 4.Mediterranean 269 115.8 17.1 5.West Anatolia 590 118.1 13.9 6.East Marmara 209 117.7 13.0 7.West Black Sea 455 117.0 13.4 8.Central Anatolia 310 118.4 13.5 9.East Black Sea 153 119.7 14.4 10.Northeast Anatolia 90 116.2 16.2 11.Middle East Anatolia 130 117.9 13.7 12.Southeastern Anatolia 234 116.8 14.0 Total 3202 117.3 14.1 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 9, high school students’ water literacy scores did not differ significantly according to the region they live in [F(11,3190)=1,62, p>0,05]. However, water-saving scores differ significantly according to the Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 579 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group region where high school students live [F(11,3190)=2,26, p<0,05]. Water-saving score of high school students living in the Eastern Black Sea ( X̅=58.94) was significantly higher than those living in the Mediterranean (X̅=56.60). Water sensitivity scores differ significantly according to the region where high school students live [F(11,3190)=3,20, p<0,05]. Accordingly, water sensitivity scores of high school students living in Southeastern Anatolia (X̅=18.83) was significantly lower than the scores of students living in the Western Black Sea (X̅=19.94), Central Anatolia (X̅= 20.11) and Eastern Black Sea (X̅=20.37). Also, the scores of students living in the Eastern Black Sea (X̅=20.37) were significantly higher than those of students living in the Middle East Anatolia (X̅=18.73). Finally, water consciousness scores differ significantly according to the region where high school students live [F(11,3190)=3,20, p<0,05]. A significant difference emerged between students living in Central East Anatolia and students living in Istanbul, in favor of students who live in the Middle East Anatolia. The t-test results of the high school students’ water literacy according to their knowledge about water-related institutions are given in Table 10. Table-10. Analysis of high school students' water literacy according to their knowledge of institution about water Scale Knowledge of water- related institutions N X̅ Ss Sd t p Water-saving Yes 2338 58.03 6.04 3200 4.54 .000* No 834 56.93 6.24 Water consciousness Yes 2338 40.1 8.77 3200 4.36 .000* No 834 38.76 9.30 Water sensitivity Yes 2338 20.10 4.10 3200 7.68 .000* No 834 18.84 4.14 General Yes 2338 118.4 14.11 330 6.98 .000* No 834 114.5 13.92 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 10, there was a significant effect of knowing any institution related to water, on high school students’ water literacy overall scores [t(3200)=6,82, p<0,05]. The scores of high school students regarding the water-saving [t(3200)=4,54,p<0,05], water consciousness [t(3200)=4,36,p<0,05], and water sensitivity [t(3200)=7,68,p<0,05] sub-dimensions of the scale also differ significantly according to their knowledge of water- related institutions. The knowledge of high school students about water-related institutions causes a significant difference in favor of those who know the water-related institution in both their general literacy and sub- dimensions. The results of the t-test for high school students' water literacy scores and participation in water- related activities are given in Table 11. Table-11. Analysis of high school students' water literacy according to their participation in water-related activities. Scale Participation in water-related activities N X̅ Ss Sd t p Water-saving Yes 488 58.61 6.64 3200 3.41 .001* No 2714 57.58 6.01 Water consciousness Yes 488 43.15 8.99 3200 8.84 .000* No 2714 39.30 8.81 Water sensitivity Yes 488 20.40 4.72 3200 3.73 .000* No 2714 19.64 4.03 General Yes 488 122.1 15.59 330 8.17 .000* No 2714 116.5 13.72 Note: *p<0.05. As can be seen in Table 11, there was a significant effect of participating in water-related activities, on high school students’ water literacy overall scores [t(3200)=8,17,p<0,05]. Likewise, the scores of high school students regarding the water-saving [t(3200)=4,54,p<0,05], water consciousness [t(3200)=4,36,p<0,05], and water sensitivity [t(3200)=7,68,p<0,05] sub-dimensions of the scale show a significant difference according to their participation in the water-related activity. In other words, the scale scores of high school students who participated in the water- related activity were significantly higher than those who did not participate in the activities 4. Conclusion and Recommendations With the rapid population growth in the world, studies on ‘water’ have gained speed. This study revealed the water literacy levels of students at the high school level in Turkey, and factors affecting these levels. As a result of the study, the water literacy of high school students was generally at a 'good level'. As stated in UNESCO (2006) literacy should no longer be viewed individually but socially. Therefore, the high level of water literacy of students is an expected situation for all societies. In today's world, where the effects of global warming are increasing day by day, the importance of the subject is increasing. When the sub-dimensions of water literacy were analyzed, high school students were very good at water-saving and good at water sensitivity, but remain at medium level in terms of water consciousness. Results conclude that students assumed their responsibilities for saving water individually, but they were not willing to influence and direct the people around them and increase their knowledge. Turkey has a semi-arid climate and is a country facing water scarcity. Therefore, the situation of young people who are water- sensitive, and tend to save water, remained at an average level of awareness of water and awareness-raising should be considered as a deficiency. Moreover, local and regional development of the water struggle will make significant contributions on a global scale. The fact that the participants found to be at a medium level on water awareness may be interpreted as there is a lack of knowledge about basic concepts and the structure of water. Undoubtedly, knowing the general concepts about water and understanding the functioning of water is of great importance in ensuring water literacy. Necessary arrangements needed to be made in the education-training processes to Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 580 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group overcome these information gaps. In his study with 5th-grade students, Wheeler (2012) determined that students had information deficiencies and misconceptions about water. To overcome these deficiencies and misconceptions, Wheeler (2012) recommended increasing training about water and developing the water literacy curriculum. Although the circulation of water in the earth is included more in the field of engineering and natural sciences, educational sciences and teachers have a significant role in providing water awareness and eliminating basic knowledge gaps. Similarly, Sammel and McMartin (2014) emphasizes that educators have a greater role in the development of water literacy than engineers. As in all teaching activities, to increase the water literacy level, the teachers are needed to be well trained and able to use new teaching techniques. Moreno-Guerrero et al. (2020) concluded that flipped learning practices are more effective in developing water literacy as it increases student motivation and participation compared to traditional teaching methods. There was a significant effect for gender, with female students receiving higher scores than male students both in overall scale and in water-saving and water sensitivity sub-dimensions. In this case, the water literacy level of female students was higher. This result indicates that female students are more sensitive to water and attach importance to water saving. No proportional difference was found in the school types and the education levels of parents, in which female and male students. Therefore, the effects of personal and environmental factors may be mentioned in the occurrence of this situation. The water literacy levels of high school students do not change according to the grade level. However, 12th- grade students in the water-saving sub-dimension of the scale got higher scores than those who studied in other grades. In other words, 12th-grade students are more successful in water-saving than lower grades. This result may arise from the increase in the knowledge acquired by students until the 12th grade. Wang et al. (2019) were determined that the water literacy levels of the participants improved after the water- saving activities. There was no significant difference between water knowledge and attitude towards water and the level of water literacy. There was a significant difference between variables such as age, income level, and domestic water expenses of the participants and the levels of water literacy. The education levels of high school students' mothers and fathers were not significant in general water literacy levels. However, the water-saving and water sensitivity of the students whose parents are university graduates were higher than the illiterate parents. This result indicates that students learn water-saving from their parents with high education levels and gain sensitivity towards the water. Contrary to this situation, students whose parents have low education levels had higher water consciousness than others. The items that constitute water consciousness are composed of mostly cognitive items that are difficult to transmit by parents with low education levels. In this context, the personal efforts of students whose parents have low education levels may have been effective in raising their water consciousness. As the GPA of high school students increased, water literacy levels also increased. The same is true for other sub-dimensions, except for the water consciousness dimension. The fact that academically successful individuals are water literate individuals may be seen as a positive aspect of the education system. The type of school in which high school students attend did not significantly affect their overall water literacy levels. However, the students studying in schools that are accepting students with exams were at a higher level of water literacy. This situation is in parallel with the results of the GPA variable. The same result was achieved in terms of water-saving and water sensitivity sub-dimensions of the scale. Briefly, the water literacy level of the students whose GPA was high and studying in the schools that accept students by exam was higher. This situation may be considered as a reflection of academic success. Xu et al. (2019) stated that water knowledge levels of citizens have a direct effect on water behavior and indirectly affect water sensitivity and water responsibility. There was no significant relationship between water ethics and water behavior. Based on these results, the importance of citizens' water feelings, and water responsibility was emphasized in the works to be carried out to protect water. There was no significant impact of the region lived in, on the general water literacy of high school students. However, the highest point average in water-saving was found in the students living in the Eastern Black Sea, and the lowest in students living in the Mediterranean. When Turkey's climate is concerned, it is a remarkable result that the water-saving approach was high in the region with the most precipitation and water resources. Considering that the school types and GPA of the students were close to each other in these regions, the difference in culture between regions may be the reason for this situation. It can be mentioned the effect of the fact that the Eastern Black Sea region receives rain throughout the year, there are many rivers, and the sea has a very important place in daily life. The lowest region in terms of water awareness was Istanbul. It is noteworthy that this situation occurred in Istanbul, which is Turkey's largest but also one of the world's few large cities. In the emergence of this result, the fact that young people in high school age did not experience or feel water problems in Istanbul during their short lives may be significant. Hui-Shuang He (2018) has revealed that socioeconomic and geographical differences were significant in water literacy scores as a result of the water literacy scale applied in four different regions of China. The average score in Beijing, which is the center of politics, economy, and culture, was 74.29, while the water literacy score average was 69.55 in Qingtongxia in the Yellow River basin, where water scarcity occurred. The least sensitivity was determined in the Southeastern Anatolia and Middle East Anatolia regions in terms of water sensitivity. The most sensitive region in terms of water sensitivity was the Eastern Black Sea region. The Southeastern Anatolia region is Turkey's most arid regions, and vice versa for the emergence of a result was expected. The low education level of parents in both Southeast Anatolia and Middle East Anatolia regions may have an impact on this situation. As mentioned in the mother and father education section, students with the low education level of parents have lower water sensitivity. Finally, the water literacy level of the students who participated in any water-related activity and who knew the name of the water institution was higher than the others. This result may be explained as that the activities that students participate contribute to being more conscious and sensitive about water. Students who know the water-related institution are cognitively and affectively careful about this topic. That allows them to become a high-level water literate. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 581 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Within the framework of the results; the number of students participating in the water-related activity was very low, but the water literacy of those students was high. Therefore, increasing water-related activities in schools may contribute to water literacy. In addition, nationwide activities that will raise water awareness and sensitivity through non-governmental organizations may be beneficial. Wood (2014) draws attention to the development of a sense of responsibility to take steps with local, national, and global impact, away from individual behavior to raise water literacy standards. Special plans should be made for regions with low water literacy. Raising awareness of the new generation is important both for the coming years and for the country in general. Otaki et al. (2015) stated that the ultimate goal of the concept of water literacy is the construction of a water system diversified according to the local lifestyle and traditions to coexist as a society. Therefore, steps should be taken towards reaching a water literate society through educational activities which planned considering regional differences. In order to increase the water literacy of high school students, giving practical training rather than academic knowledge may contribute more. Students who learn by doing and living are expected to have more permanent attitudes and behaviors. Ursavaş. and Aytar (2019) determined that after an action-oriented training, biology, and science teachers experienced a positive change in water literacy levels and gained a multi-faceted perspective on water-related subjects. As in all teaching activities, performing in-class or out-of-class practices that will provide an environment suitable for learning by doing-living may also play a significant role in increasing the number of water literate individuals. Maclean and Bana (2015) emphasizes the necessity of effective participation, especially local people, to ensure water governance in Australia and to achieve a sustainable environment and water management. The planning of the projects and activities in which the society is fully integrated may ensure effective water management and water literate society in Turkey. Multidisciplinary approaches might be planned in Turkey to achieve a water literate community goal and to provide sustainable water for future generations. There is a need for courses to be taught at the educational levels and activities that will raise awareness in every segment of society. As highlighted as a result of the course model developed by Sherchan et al. (2016) a water literacy module or course, which can only be realized with a multidisciplinary approach, will also provide strong cooperation between students and faculty. This ability to collaborate is the critical learning component that society expects from citizens in the 21st century. Learning contents, projects, or activities planned with a multidisciplinary approach may provide a successful and permanent increase in citizens' water literacy levels. In their study, Forbes et al. (2018) found that, after participating in a course developed with a multi-disciplinary approach, there was an increase in the post-test scores of the students compared to the pre-test scores. This result supports the necessity of acting with a multidisciplinary approach in the development of water literacy. This study is a pioneering study in the field to reveal the water literacy level and the variables that affect this level in Turkey. New studies with different methods and techniques may contribute to the development of water literacy. References Ahmed, M. (2011). Defining and measuring literacy: Facing the reality. International Review of Education, 57(1-2), 179-195. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-011-9188-x. Aksay, C. S., Ketenoğlu, O., & Latif, K. (2005). Global warming and climate change. Selcuk University Faculty of Science Journal of Science, 1(25), 29-42. Brody, M. (1995). Development of a curriculum framework for water education for educators, scientists, and resource managers. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 18-29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941448. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, K. E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Scientific research methods. 18. Printing. Ankara: Pegem Academy. Covitt, B. A., Gunckel, K. L., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Students' developing understanding of water in environmental systems. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 37-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/joee.40.3.37-51. Dinç, H. (2018). An essay on the necessity and power of water literacy education. Anatolian Teacher Journal, 2(2), 169-176. Falkenmark, M., Lundqvist, J., & Widstrand, C. (1989). Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches: Aspects of vulnerability in semi-arid development. Natural Resources Forum, 13(4), 258–267. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477- 8947.1989.tb00348.x. Forbes, C. T., Brozović, N., Franz, T. E., Lally, D. E., & Petitt, D. N. (2018). Water in society: An interdisciplinary course to support undergraduate students’ water literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(1), 36-42. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst18_048_01_36. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2016). Research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin. Hui-Shuang He. (2018). Construction of the index system of water literacy and application in a case study of four Chinese communities. Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences and Cryptography, 21(2), 485-491. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09720529.2018.1449330. Karadağ, A. A. (2008). problems and solutions related to water resources management in Turkey. Paper presented at the Chamber 2. Water Policy Conference Proceedings. Karakaya, İ. (2011). In scientific research methods, A. Tanrıöğen. (Edt.). Scientific research methods (2nd ed., pp. 57-58). Ankara: Memory. Karasar, N. (2012). Scientific research method (24th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Maclean, K., & Bana, Y. B. I. (2015). Crossing cultural boundaries: Integrating Indigenous water knowledge into water governance through co-research in the queensland wet tropics. Australia. Geoforum, 59, 142-152. Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M., López-Belmonte, J., & Alonso-García, S. (2020). Flipped learning approach as educational innovation in water literacy. Water, 12(2), 574. Muluk, B., Wolf, B., Turak, A., Hardworking, M., Balkiz, Ö., Gümrükçü, S., & Sarigul, U. (2013). Water and water management in Turkey condition new approach: Environmental perspectives. Istanbul: Golden Medya Matbaacılık ve Ticaret A.Ş. Otaki, Y., Sakura, O., & Otaki, M. (2015). Advocating water literacy. Mahasarakham International Journal of Engineering Technology, 1(1), 36- 40. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169-186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Patton., M. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3, 230-246. Sammel, A. J., & McMartin, D. W. (2014). Teaching and knowing beyond the water cycle: What does it mean to be water literate? Creative Education, 5, 835-848. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510097. Sherchan, S., Pasha, F., Weinman, B., Nelson, F. L., Sharma, F. C., Therkelsen, J., & Drexler, D. (2016). Seven faculties in search of a mission: A proposed interdisciplinary course on water literacy. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 15(2), 171-183. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015x.2016.1164098. Sözcü, U., & Türker, A. (2020). Development of water literacy scale. Third Sector Journal of Social Economy, 55(2), 1155-1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510097 Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2020, 6(3): 569-582 582 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj1102063. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, new international edition (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. TÜBİTAK. (2020). High school students research projects competition project guide (2204-A). Retrieved from: http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/yarismalar/icerik-lise-ogrencileri-arastirma-projeleri-yarismasiadresindenerişilmiştir [ accessed 23.02.2020 ]. Türkyılmaz, A. (2010). Water in the world and in our country water management and legislation. Ankara: Sarıyıldız Offset. UNESCO. (2006). Understandings of literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt6_eng.pdfadresindenerişilmiştir. [Accessed 17.06.2020 ]. United Nations. (2007). Coping with water scarcity - challenge of the twenty century world water day 22 March 2007. United Nations – Food and Agricultural Organization. Ursavaş, N., & Aytar, A. (2018). Investigation of pre-school students' water awareness and development in water literacy: A project-based research. İnformal Ortamlarda Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(1), 19-45. Ursavaş., N., & Aytar, A. (2019). Determining the changes in water literacy understanding of teachers brought by action-oriented water training Ali Gül, Nurcan Uzel, (Ed.), In: Current Researches in Environmental Education (pp. 15-38). Lithuania: SRA Academic Publishing. Wang, Y.-H., Chang, M.-C., & Liou, J.-R. (2019). Effects of water-saving education in Taiwan on public water knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention change. Water Policy, 21(5), 964-979. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.173. Wheeler, G. (2012). International symposium on environmental water literacy, Japan. Water literacy: Educator perspective, students’ knowledge, and possible misconceptions. Wood, G. V. (2014). Water literacy and citizenship: Education for sustainable domestic water use in the East Midlands. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham. Xu, R., Wang, W., Wang, Y., & Zhang, B. (2019). Can water knowledge change citizens’ water behavior? A case study in Zhengzhou, China. Ekoloji, 28(107), 1019-1027. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/yarismalar/icerik-lise-ogrencileri-arastirma-projeleri-yarismasiadresindenerişilmiştir http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/yarismalar/icerik-lise-ogrencileri-arastirma-projeleri-yarismasiadresindenerişilmiştir http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt6_eng.pdfadresindenerişilmiştir http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt6_eng.pdfadresindenerişilmiştir