TE 401 Lesson Plans: Fall, 1997€¦ · Web viewDraft: Environmental Literacy Blueprint....

Draft: Environmental Literacy Blueprint

September, 2006

Charles W. Anderson, Hasan Abdel-Kareem, Jing Chen, In-Young Cho, Beth Covitt, Jim Gallagher, Kristin Gunckel, Lindsey Mohan Hawkins, Hui Jin, Ajay Sharma, Blakely Tsurusaki,

Chris Wilson, Josie Zesaguli

Michigan State University

Phil Piety

University of Michigan

Contents

Abstract: Learning Progressions in Environmental Literacy..........................................................................................4

Background: The Science Curriculum and Environmentally Responsible Citizenship........................................6Interdisciplinary Scientific Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems.......................................................7Responsible Citizenship and Environmental Science Literacy..................................................................................7

Theoretical Framework: Key Practices of Environmental Science Literacy........................................................10General Framework.................................................................................................................................................10

Knowledge and practice in environmental science literacy................................................................................10Practices, principles, and processes in systems in the framework......................................................................12

1. Inquiry: Learning from experience......................................................................................................................142. Scientific Accounts: Learning and Applying Authoritative Scientific Knowledge...............................................143. Using scientific reasoning for responsible citizenship: Reconciling experience, authority, and values.............15

General Trends in a Learning Progression for Environmental Science Literacy................................................16Elementary: Local experience and understanding of individual systems at a human scale....................................17Middle school: Using scientific models to explain and connect systems.................................................................18High school: Integrated understanding of local environmental systems in context................................................19

Concluding Thoughts..................................................................................................................................................21

References....................................................................................................................................................................21

Appendix A: Learning Progression Notes for Inquiry............................................................................................24Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances.....................................................24Lower Anchor: Informal Learning from Experience...............................................................................................24Possible Progress Variables....................................................................................................................................24Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................24Teaching Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................24

Appendix B: Learning Progression Notes for Carbon............................................................................................25Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances.....................................................25Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Plants, Animals, Combustion...............................................................26Possible Progress Variables....................................................................................................................................26Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................26Teaching Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................26

Appendix C: Learning Progression Notes for Energy.............................................................................................27Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances.....................................................27Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Energy and Causes of Processes.........................................................30Possible Progress Variables....................................................................................................................................30Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................31Teaching Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................31References................................................................................................................................................................31

Appendix D: Learning Progression Notes for Water..............................................................................................33Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances.....................................................33Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Water in Environmental Systems.........................................................39Possible Progress Variables....................................................................................................................................39Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................39Teaching Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................40

Appendix E: Learning Progression Notes for Diversity..........................................................................................41Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances.....................................................41Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Structure-function Relationships, Life Cycles, and Diversity..............41Possible Progress Variables....................................................................................................................................42Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................42Teaching Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................43References................................................................................................................................................................43

Appendix F: Learning Progression Notes for Citizenship......................................................................................44

!//#,

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances.....................................................44Lower Anchor: Informal Decision Making..............................................................................................................44Possible Progress Variables....................................................................................................................................45Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................45Teaching Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................45

!//#,

Abstract: Learning Progressions in Environmental LiteracyThis blueprint outlines a blueprint for a program of research and development for a K-12

curriculum focusing on environmental science literacy—the capacity to understand and participate in evidence-based discussions of the effects of human actions on environmental systems. Environmental science literate high school graduates should be able to engage in two practices that are essential for environmentally responsible citizenship. They should be able to understand and evaluate experts’ arguments about environmental issues, and they should be able to decide on policies and personal actions that are consistent with their environmental values.

Environmental science literacy requires understanding of many aspects of science, including those addressed in this session: Chemical and physical change, carbon cycling, diversity and evolution by natural selection, and connecting human actions with environmental systems. These phenomena are currently addressed in many state and national standards documents and in school curricula, but typically they are addressed in disconnected ways—in different courses or in different units in the same course. We argue that they can fit together as a coherent conceptual domain that all of our citizens need to understand. In particular, understanding in all of these domains requires applying fundamental principles to processes in coupled human and natural systems.

Our framework includes three components:1. Practices. Environmental science literacy includes three key practices:

a. Inquiry: learning from experience, developing and evaluating arguments from evidence

b. Scientific accounts: understanding and producing model-based accounts of environmental systems; using scientific accounts to explain and predict observations

c. Citizenship: using scientific reasoning for responsible citizenship2. Principles applied to processes in systems. Each practice involves applying fundamental

principles to processes in coupled human and natural systems. a. Principles. Key categories of principles include:

i. Inquiry principles, including principles for acquiring data, finding patterns in data, and critiquing and evaluating investigations

ii. Structure of systems, including atomic-molecular, microscopic, macroscopic, and large-scale structures

iii. Constraints on processes, including principles for tracing matter, energy, and information through processes in systems.

iv. Change over time, including principles for understanding multiple causation, feedback loops, and evolutionary changes in populations

v. Citizenship principles, including principles for evaluating conflicting claims and deciding on responsible courses of action.

b. Processes in systems. Key systems and processes include:i. Earth systems, including the earth, atmosphere, and water.

ii. Living systems, including cells, organisms, populations, and ecosystems.iii. Engineered systems, including the systems that provide human populations

with food, energy, water, and transportation.3. Learning progressions. We seek to develop research-based learning progressions that

describe how K-12 students could come to master the practices of environmental literacy. Learning progressions are built around (a) an upper anchor: the detailed practices that we

!//#,

hope high school graduates will master, (b) a lower anchor: what we learn from empirical research about the practices and understandings of children in elementary school, and (c) progress variables that can be used to describe a series of reasonable steps from the lower to the upper anchor. We organize these learning progressions around three strands:

a. Carbon. The role of carbon compounds in earth, living, and engineered systems, including carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, energy flow and carbon cycling in ecosystems, and fossil fuels in human energy and transportation systems

b. Water. The role of water and substances carried by water in earth, living, and engineered systems, including the atmosphere, surface water and ice, ground water, human water systems, and water in living systems.

c. Diversity. The diversity of living and engineered systems, including genetics and life cycles of individual organisms, evolutionary changes in populations, diversity in natural ecosystems and in human systems that produce food, fiber, and wood.

Working groups consisting of university-based researchers and K-12 teachers are focusing on each strand, reviewing relevant literature, developing assessments that reveal students’ reasoning about the topic, and administering the assessments in the teachers’ classrooms. Our goal is to produce three kinds of products:1. Learning progressions as described above: research-based accounts of how students enter

school thinking about environmental systems, and of the progress variables and learning processes that could lead to the development of environmentally literate practices and understandings.

2. Assessment resources that can be used for research and to guide teachers’ practice as they assess students’ progress toward environmental literacy.

3. Teaching resources that teachers can use to help students master the practices and understandings of environmental science literacy in ways appropriate for the students’ ages and cultures.

Products developed to date can be found on our website: http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/index.htm.

!//#,

http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/index.htm

Background: The Science Curriculum and Environmentally Responsible Citizenship

The last decade has seen a broad consensus in American science education around a program of standards-based reform. We have generally supported efforts to focus the curriculum on the largely overlapping content of the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). While this program still enjoys broad support, there are signs that that support is beginning to erode. Two lines of criticism have emerged, urging that the curriculum defined by the standards be changed in different directions.

The first line of criticism could be labeled a traditionalist critique. These critics are perhaps best exemplified the publications of the Fordham Institute and its director, Chester Finn (e.g., Gross, 2005a, 2005b). These critics claim that the current national standards, as well as state standards and assessments based on them, lack sufficient rigorous science content. They advocate a program of reform based on traditional disciplinary content. Although these critics have relatively little support in the science education community, they have a clear agenda that has attracted considerable attention among scientists and politicians.

The second line of criticism could be labeled a science education research critique. These critics focus on a number of limitations that are likely to keep the program of standards-based reform from achieving its ambitious goals (e.g., AAAS Project 2061, 2003; Anderson, 2004). Those concerns include the following: The reform agenda is more ambitious than our current resources and infrastructure can

support. There are conceptual problems with the way standards conceive of relationships among

knowledge, language, practice, and meta-level understandings about the nature of science. The standards advocate strategies that may not reduce achievement gaps among different

groups of students. There are too many standards, more than students can learn with understanding in the time

we have to teach science. The current standards are based on science content as of the early 1990’s, so there is a need

to reconsider which science content is most current and most important. The current standards do not take full advantage of recent research on science teaching and

learning.While these concerns are widespread in the science education community, they have not

led to clearly defined agendas that have wide support among science educators. This session is part of an effort to promote discussion that could lead toward such an agenda.

This paper set reports results from a long-term program of research that builds on developments in the natural sciences, where interdisciplinary research on coupled human and natural systems has become increasingly important. These changes in the natural science lead us to advocate changes in the science curriculum that refocus the curriculum on environmental literacy and responsible citizenship. Finally, our approach is influenced by developments in educational research, where learning progressions are emerging as a strategy for synthesizing research on science learning and applying that research to policy and practice.

!//#,

Interdisciplinary Scientific Research on Coupled Human and Natural SystemsIn the natural sciences, traditionally separate fields are increasingly integrated. For

example, modern ecology has focused on linked human and natural systems (see, for example, AC-ERE, 2003). Human populations survive by altering natural ecosystems and the processes in them, taking materials we need out of those systems and putting our wastes back into them. Thus ecological research has focused increasingly on environmental systems that have been substantially altered by humans, such as farms and cities, as well as the supply chains and waste disposal chains that connect human economic and technological systems with both relatively pristine and altered ecosystems.

These changes in the natural sciences are driven in part by increasing awareness among scientists of how human populations are changing local and global environments. For example, the “carbon cycle” is no longer a cycle, on either local or global scales; most environmental systems—especially those altered by humans—are net producers or net consumers of organic carbon. Similarly, humans have altered the global system so that there is now a net flow of carbon from forests and fossil fuels to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Thus previous beliefs in the “balance of nature” and the basic stability of earth systems have been replaced by an understanding of environmental systems as dynamic in nature and changing in ways that we need to understand (see, for example, Weart, 2003).

It is now generally accepted that human populations and the technological systems that support us have grown to the point where we are fundamentally altering the natural environmental systems that sustain all life on Earth. Human influences are changing environmental systems in new ways, at unprecedented rates, and with potentially grievous consequences to humans and other life forms. Evidence of the scale of human effects on environmental systems abounds: Global climate change is happening; average carbon dioxide levels have risen by almost 20%

in the last 40 years. This process will have inevitable (though not completely understood) consequences for sea levels, frequency and severity of storms, natural ecosystems, and human agriculture (Keeling and Whorf, 2005).

Around 50% of net photosynthetic output of terrestrial ecosystems is now appropriated for human use (Vitousek, Ehrlich, Ehrlich, & Pamela Matson, 1986).

Species are becoming extinct at 1000 times the long-term average rate (Wilson, 2001).These developments in environmental science research have implications for all of us. The

natural environment cannot continue to support human societies in their present organization and technologies. As we continue to live beyond the resources means that ecosystems can provide, the consequences of this environmental deficit will fall inequitably across the people on this globe. Those who live in environmentally marginal areas, in impoverished economies, and in politically unstable countries will suffer first and most.

Responsible Citizenship and Environmental Science LiteracyA critical function of universal education is to prepare students for multiple roles that we

play as citizens - as learners, consumers, voters, workers, volunteers, and advocates. The ways that we carry out our roles as citizens affect our impact, as individuals and as a society, on the Earth’s environmental systems. Our choices as consumers, voters, and advocates, for example, may impact our future access to ecosystem services such as clean air, clean water, food, and a climate appropriate for human habitation.

!//#,

Here are some key roles and the ways that these roles affect coupled human and natural systems. Learners. We are learners throughout our lives. After finishing school, what we learn

depends in large measure on what we choose to pay attention to, in the media, in our personal experience, and in more formal educational settings. Our choices about what we learn and how affect our ability to make use of evidence about environmental systems in all of our actions as citizens.

Consumers. We are also consumers throughout our lives, making decisions about our lifestyles and about the goods and services that we use. The impacts of the decisions we make as individual consumers are small. The cumulative impact of many individual consumer decisions, though, is huge. The human systems with the greatest environmental impact have largely been constructed to satisfy consumer demand.1

Voters. As voters, we sometimes vote directly on measures that have environmental implications—votes on support for mass transit, or sewage treatment and other infrastructure, or land use decisions. Even votes that do not seem to be directly about the environment can have environmental implications. Voters choose elected officials who make decisions about environmental issues, and elected officials respond to voter concerns when they set policies or appoint people to regulatory agencies.

Workers. Environmental systems are affected both by the jobs we choose and by how we choose to do them. Workers make decisions that have environmental impacts ranging from whether to recycle paper in an office, to how much fertilizer and pesticide to put on a farm field, to whether to build a new power plant. Some citizens will do work that influences our laws and policies or the practices and priorities of large corporations.

Volunteers and advocates. Citizens also have many other opportunities to influence the interactions between human populations and environmental systems. We can serve as members of boards or commissions or as advocates for particular causes. We can serve as “citizen scientists” who help to collect data and monitor environmental systems. We can decide what organizations to join or support with our donations. We can participate in political action at local, regional and global levels. We can serve in political office.Responsible citizenship has traditionally involved respecting the rights and values of our

fellow citizens. We desire freedom, opportunity, and justice for ourselves; we recognize that our actions affect others; and we are obliged to act in ways that benefit them as well as us. The scientific developments outlined above make clear that this definition of responsible citizenship is no longer sufficient. We must recognize that our actions affect the material world—the environmental systems on which we and our descendents depend—and find ways to use scientific knowledge as a vehicle for considering environmental consequences in the decisions we make as we engage in the various roles of citizens.

We cannot anticipate the environmental issues that our children will face during their lifetimes, or the courses of actions that will be wisest. Thus the role of science education is not primarily to advocate for particular actions or policies. Scientific knowledge and practices should provide communal resources that all citizens can draw on. Individual scientists can and should advocate for particular policies and practices based on their personal values and

1 Our choices of goods and services as consumers always involve environmental systems that produce and transport those goods and services as well as systems that dispose of wastes. For example, a person consuming a hamburger indirectly makes use of production systems that created the ingredients, transportation systems that brought the ingredients together, energy systems for food preparation, waste disposal systems, and so forth.

!//#,

opportunities, but the resources of scientific reasoning should be available to all citizens, respected by all citizens, and all citizens should understand their nature and limitations.

Thus it is incumbent upon our education system to provide citizens with the knowledge and practices that will enable them to be environmentally responsible decisions. Historically, our schools have not done an adequate job of preparing citizens to make environmentally responsible decisions. Specifically, our current science curriculum does not reflect scientific understanding of coupled nature of human and natural systems. Furthermore, the practices necessary for responsible environmental decision-making, including the appreciation for the importance of arguments based on scientific evidence, are rarely nurtured in our schools today. The consequences are visible in studies of how adults reason about environmental issues (e.g., Coyle, 2005; Kempton, Boster, and Hartley, 1995). Most adults have difficulty using scientific evidence in environmental arguments or judging the quality of evidence-based arguments.

Thus we return to an idea developed above. Science provides our society with valuable communal resources whose nature and limitations we must understand if we are to use them wisely. We cannot fully anticipate the environmental issues that our children will face during their lifetimes, or the policies and practices that will be most appropriate in responding to them. We can, however, provide our students with opportunities to develop three critical abilities for environmentally literate citizens. 1. Democratic participation and agency. Environmentally literate citizens understand, value,

and exercise both the rights and responsibilities of participation in a democracy. These responsibilities include balancing the good of individuals with the good of society. Thus students need to understand the import of their personal actions as well as how they can influence our collective actions.

2. Understanding and evaluating scientific evidence and arguments. Environmentally literate citizens understand and value the scientific dimensions of environmental issues and make informed judgments about arguments advanced by experts. This includes the ability to evaluate the empirical evidence that supports an argument, rather than simply trusting authorities.

3. Reconciling our values and consequences of our actions. Environmentally literate citizens relate their actions and the policies that they support with their own environmental and moral values. This includes the ability to understand the likely environmental effects of actions, policies, and lifestyles, and to decide whether those effects are compatible with their values.

We hold that the ultimate test of our science curriculum will be the ability of our citizens to use their scientific knowledge for these purposes. We must develop education systems that will prepare all of our citizens to play their roles knowledgeably and responsibly. Thus we address the question: What scientific knowledge and practices should all students learn that will give them the capacity to be environmentally responsible citizens?

Theoretical Framework: Key Practices of Environmental Science Literacy

In this section we describe the upper anchor of our learning progression—the practices and understandings of environmental science literacy. Environmentally responsible students are capable of using scientific reasoning as a resource for personal and social decision making. This means that students need to engage in four key practices of environmental science literacy: (1) Scientific inquiry: developing and evaluating scientific arguments from evidence,

!//#,

(2) Scientific accounts and their applications: understanding scientific accounts of the material world; using scientific accounts as tools to predict and explain, and

(3) Citizenship: using scientific reasoning for responsible citizenship.In this section, we first present our general framework, then describe each practice in

more detail.

General FrameworkOur general framework includes (a) a position on the relationship between knowledge

and practice in environmental science literacy, and (b) a discussion of the practices, principles, and processes in systems included in our framework.

Knowledge and practice in environmental science literacyScientific reasoning about environmental systems involves both knowledge claims and

the practices that produce and use those claims. These knowledge claims and practices are represented in Figure 1, below. The types of knowledge claims are represented by the levels of the triangle: observations, patterns, and theoretical models (principles applied to processes in systems).2 The arrows represent practices that relate different kinds of knowledge claims: inquiry and application.

Let’s start from the bottom of Figure 1, considering the kinds of knowledge and the standards for validity in each part. Observations or data. People can know the systems and phenomena of the world only

through their interactions with them--through experience in the material world. Scientific arguments recognize only experiences that we can verify, reproduce, describe or measure precisely, record, and share. These experiences we observations or data. Descriptions of individual plants or animals, individual measurements denoted by points on a graph, weather reports, and readings from particle detectors in cyclotrons are all experiences that scientists would consider data. The standards by which we judge data are designed to assure that observations are tied as closely as possible to the phenomena (events) and systems of the material world. The broad base of Figure 1 indicates that scientific knowledge is based on lots of experience; most scientists spend a large part of their professional lives accumulating experience (i.e., collecting data) in some small portion of the material world and sharing their data with other scientists.

2 Notice that there is no mention of “facts” in this description of scientific reasoning. There is a reason for that. When scientists are speaking quickly they may use the word “fact” to indicate any sort of knowledge claim (observations, patterns, or theories) that is generally accepted by the scientific community. When they are being careful, though, as when they are writing research reports, they generally use more precise terms for the kinds of knowledge claims they are making. It is also important to note that “scientific facts” aren’t always “true.” Sometimes a law or theory that is accepted by one generation of scientists is rejected by the next.

!//#,

PrinciplesProcesses in

systems

Patterns in data: Laws, generalizations, graphs, tables

Observations, measurements, data using attribute-value descriptions

Learning from experience: inquiry

Using knowledge: Application

Figure 1: Scientific Knowledge and Practices Patterns in data (laws, generalizations, graphs, tables). Scientific laws and generalizations

are statements about patterns that scientists see in their data. The gas laws, for example, represent patterns of relationships among the temperature, pressure, and volume of gases that encompass millions of individual measurements (observations) that scientists have made over the years. Thus pattern finding is an essential scientific practice, a key part of developing scientific arguments from evidence. Graphs and data tables are ways of presenting data (i.e., organizing experience) so that readers can see the patterns. These patterns in experience are the essential links between data and theories. In general, scientists do not accept patterns in data as valid unless they can be used to predict patterns in data not yet examined.

Scientific models and theories: Principles applied to processes in systems. Scientific models and theories are designed to explain patterns in data. For example, biologists accept the theory of evolution because it explains many different patterns that scientists have observed in different ways—in the fossil record, in changes in populations observed by humans, in the biochemical makeup of different organisms, and so forth. The great scientific theories are beautiful in the elegant and parsimonious way that they explain a diversity of phenomena. Scientific models are simpler versions of theories that explain a smaller set of patterns. For example, a “billiard ball model” of a gas explains the patterns summarized in the gas laws pretty well, but not why gases sometimes condense into liquids. The small tip of Figure 1 indicates that the power of scientific theories and models lies in their parsimony—a few theories can explain many different patterns, each of which is based on thousands of observations. As with patterns, we use predictions about data not yet collected to test the validity of scientific models and theories.

Figure 1 also represents the practices of scientific literacy: Inquiry is generally represented by the left-hand arrow. Scientific inquiry involves

constructing arguments from evidence (i.e., observations) to support patterns and models. Accounts are the patterns and models at the top of the triangle. Using these accounts to

explain and predict specific observations is represented by the right-hand arrow. Citizenship involves using scientific practices and knowledge claims—the whole figure—to

make responsible decisions about courses of action.

Practices, principles, and processes in systems in the frameworkThe key practices, principles, and processes in systems in our framework are presented in

Table 1, below. The cells of Table 1 indicate clusters of learning performances that we would like high school graduates to accomplish. Each cluster of performances can be characterized in terms of: 1. PRACTICES: Inquiry, providing and using accounts, and reflection/citizenship. These are

the sections of the table divided by gray rows.2. PRINCIPLES that guide and constrain our practices. These are the rows of the table.

!//#,

3. PROCESSES IN SYSTEMS: earth systems, living systems, and engineered systems. These are the columns of the table.

!//#,

Table 1: Environmental Literacy High School FrameworkType of Principle

or PracticeFundamental

principles(Big Ideas)

Earth systems: Earth, water,

air

Living systems: Producers, consumers,

decomposers

Engineered sys-tems: Food, water,

shelter, energy, transportation

Practice 1: Scientific InquiryAcquiring data Standards for data:

precision & reproducibilityAcquiring data on earth systems

Acquiring data on living systems

Acquiring data on engineered systems

Finding patterns Developing explanations Predicting effects

Standards for models: fit to data, testabilityUncertainty in predictions

Developing data-based explanations and predictions about earth systems

Developing data-based explanations and predictions about living systems

Developing data-based explanations and predictions about engineered systems

Critiquing or evaluating investigations

Standards for arguments from evidence

Critiquing investigations of earth systems

Critiquing investigations of living system

Critiquing investigations of engineered system

Practices 2 and 3: Providing and Applying Scientific AccountsApplying fundamental principles… …to processes in coupled human and natural systems

Structure: Hierarchy of

Systems

Microscopic (Atomic-molecular, cellular)

Properties of atoms and molecules

Cell structure, biomolecules

Materials in engineered systems

Macroscopic Physical and chemical properties of materials

Multicellular organisms

Appliances, automobiles, etc.

Large scale Matter pools Populations, ecosystems

Large engineered systems

Constraints on Processes: Tracing

Matter, Energy, and Information

Matter: Air Wind, weather Atmospheric CO2 Air qualityMatter: Water Water cycle Transpiration Human water systemsMatter: Carbon Geological carbon

cycleEcological carbon cycling, growth

Fossil fuel systems

Matter: Other materials Sediments, pollutants, nutrients

(Nitrogen, phosphorous cycles)

Supply chains, waste disposal chains

Energy Seasonal cycles, flow of solar energy

Ecological energy flow, photosynthesis & respiration

Human energy systems

Information Genetics, life cycles, biodiversity

(Technology, economic and cultural diversity)

Change over Time Reproduction and selection Evolution: changes in size, diversity, central tendencies of populations

(Technological evolution in response to economics, regulations)

Multiple causation, feedback loops

Global climate change, land use

Invasive species, effects of climate change

Changes in technology, voluntary and involuntary lifestyle changes

Practice 4: Responsible CitizenshipCritiquing

experts’ arguments

Identifying and critiquing scientific claims in social, economic, political arguments

Critiquing experts’ arguments about earth systems

Critiquing experts’ arguments about living systems

Critiquing experts’ arguments about earth systems

Reconciling values and actions: Cost- and risk-benefit

analyses

Identifying agents for issuesIdentifying consequences that relate to valuesBalancing costs or risks and benefits

Identifying consequences and analyzing costs and benefits for earth systems

Identifying consequences and analyzing costs and benefits for living systems

Identifying consequences and analyzing costs and benefits for engineered systems

!//#,

1. Inquiry: Learning from experiencePractice 1 we label scientific inquiry. It refers broadly to the various ways that people

learn from personal or vicarious observations of the material world. There are important differences between scientific arguments from evidence and the moral, political, and legal arguments that we also engage in as citizens. The other types of argument concern relationships among people, and we give people the ultimate authority for deciding them, through democratic processes, the rule of authority, or the rule of law.

Scientific arguments are different. They are about the material world rather than relationships among people. Scientific communities have tried (often imperfectly) to develop methods and standards that give evidence from the material world the last word in deciding an argument. They have done this by developing an important set of distinctions among types of knowledge claims we can make about the material world and practices for assessing the validity of each type of knowledge claim.

In general, the practices of scientific inquiry are represented by the left-hand arrow of Figure 1. The practices of environmentally literate people who can successfully develop, use, and evaluate scientific arguments from evidence include the following: 1. Acquiring data that meet standards for precision, validity, and reproducibility. 2. Finding patterns in data3. Scientific investigations: Developing explanations for patterns in data and comparing them

with scientific accounts4. Practical or applied investigations (e.g., product testing, land use decisions, “citizen science”

monitoring of environmental systems): Using patterns in data and scientific patterns and models to predict the effects of different courses of action

5. Critiquing or evaluating reports of applied or scientific investigationsThese practices and their predecessors, such as embodied reasoning in children and adults

(see Keller, 1983; Warren, et al., 2001, Pozo & Gomez Crespo, 2005), are essential for environmentally responsible citizens because we often encounter situations in our roles as citizens where our knowledge is incomplete or where we encounter conflicting knowledge claims. We need to be able to learn from our own observations and to assess the quality of the arguments that we hear. We also need to understand the nature and limitations of “scientific facts” and “scientific proof.” These practices are not a major focus of the papers in this session, simply because they are poorly addressed by our assessments.

2. Scientific Accounts: Learning and Applying Authoritative Scientific Knowledge

Scientific communities have used arguments from evidence to develop a marvelously detailed and complex set of accounts of the material world—interlocking data, patterns, and models that explain the workings of environmental systems and how they are changing. Understanding and using these accounts is an important aspect of environmental science literacy. In this section we briefly discuss some important characteristics of the accounts of environmental systems developed by scientific communities, and we describe some key practices that citizens who understand and use these accounts can engage in.

Environmental science literacy requires an understanding of key ideas from the life, earth, and physical sciences, but scientists who study environmental systems have found it necessary to move beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. Environmentally literate citizens need to understand how the sea ice available to polar bears in the Arctic is connected to

!//#,

processes inside leaf cells in the Amazon rain forest and to American consumers’ choices about what car to buy.

A traditionally organized school curriculum obscures rather than reveals these connections because we teach students to analyze the systems in different ways. The sea ice in the Arctic might be analyzed in an earth science course as part of a weather and climate system. The leaf cells of Amazon plants might be analyzed in a life science course as part of a hierarchy of biological systems, ranging from molecules to ecosystems. American consumers’ driving choices probably would not be discussed in a science course at all; they might be discussed in a social studies course as part of an economic system.

The core problem is not that these systems are studied in different courses; it is that they are analyzed in ways that obscure their connections. The earth science course might emphasize atmospheric circulation and patterns of precipitation; the life science course might emphasize the role of chlorophyll in photosynthesis; the social studies course might emphasize the economics of automobile production and distribution. While all of these characteristics might be worthy of study, they do not help students see the key processes that tie the systems together—in this case the production and consumption of carbon dioxide and its effect on global climate.

This suggests to us that the school curriculum needs to emulate recent developments in science by emphasizing interdisciplinary accounts that use fundamental principles to reveal the linkages among processes in coupled human and natural systems.

3. Using scientific reasoning for responsible citizenship: Reconciling experience, authority, and values

The discussion above, of scientific arguments from evidence, scientific accounts of environmental systems, and scientific predictions and explanations, has deliberately focused solely on science and scientific reasoning. Responsible citizenship, however, requires us to use scientific knowledge effectively in arguments and decisions about human freedom, opportunity, and justice. We encounter these kinds of decisions, which concern both our relationships with other people and our relationships with the material world, in all of our roles as citizens. They arise around issues of consumer choice, technological design, support for policies or laws, deciding which candidates to vote for, and so forth.

Environmental science literacy does not involve teaching students which moral, legal, economic, and political actions are correct, but it does involve helping students to see the role that scientific knowledge and scientific reasoning can play choosing in those actions. This involves, in particular, understanding the nature and the limitations of scientific reasoning. We cannot decide by majority vote whether our economic policies and practices will lead to global climate change; the global climate operates according to its own rules, not ours. On the other hand, science cannot dictate what economic policies and practices we should adopt. These decisions legitimately involve different people and interest groups appealing to our legal, moral, and political rules and values. Scientific reasoning is also limited by the inherent uncertainty in scientific accounts and predictions.

Our arguments about environmental issues often hinge on questions about the justice or the sustainability of particular policies or courses of action. These are important questions, and scientific reasoning can play a role in answering them. Scientific accounts and predictions can help us understand how important goods and services are distributed among people and human populations today, and how a policy or course of action might affect that distribution. Scientific reasoning can also help us to project the short-term and longer-term consequences of our actions.

!//#,

Issues of justice and sustainability, however, are never merely scientific. They involve legal, moral, political, social, and economic considerations that go beyond the realm of science.

Using the resources of science for responsible citizenship involves two key practices. First, environmentally literate citizens will be able to understand the scientific dimensions of

environmental issues and make informed judgments about arguments advanced by experts. This includes the ability to evaluate the empirical evidence that supports an argument, rather than simply trusting authorities.

Second, environmentally literate citizens will be able to relate their actions and the policies that they support with their own environmental and moral values. This includes the ability to understand the likely environmental effects of actions, policies, and lifestyles, and to decide whether those effects are compatible with their values. Thus we must learn how to use our communally held scientific resources to anticipate the likely effects of our actions on environmental systems, and we must use our understanding of the consequences for cost-benefit analyses or risk-benefit analyses.

General Trends in a Learning Progression for Environmental Science Literacy

In the previous section we developed a general description of the knowledge and practices of environmentally literate citizens—citizens who can use the communal resources of science responsibly as they decide how to act in their roles as learners, consumers, voters, workers, volunteers, and advocates. In this section we expand on that general description in two respects. First, we propose a framework for describing dimensions of environmental science literacy: systems, knowledge, and practice. We use this framework to describe a proposed learning progression: a description of the successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about environmental systems that can follow one another as children study and learn in elementary, middle, and high school.

Although we do not propose specific instructional practices that could develop these ways of thinking, we recognize that our proposed learning progression depends on innovative instruction. Thus, our ideas are conjectural in nature--ideas about how understanding COULD be developed given sustained and appropriate instructional practices--while at the same time based on research syntheses, and open to testing in future research. More specifically:1. At the elementary school end, our learning progression is anchored by what we know about

the concepts and reasoning of elementary school students entering school. There is now a very extensive research base about this, although much of it is not widely known by the science education community, which often relies on older (outdated) characterizations of elementary school children's competence from earlier developmental literature. In addition to this literature, we use the findings of our own research at the elementary school level.

2. At the high school end, our learning progression is anchored by our ideas about the essential knowledge and practices of environmental science literacy—the ideas that we present in the previous section. We elaborate on those ideas in this section by proposing specific knowledge and practices appropriate for elementary, middle, and high school students.

3. In this learning progression we propose possible intermediate understandings between these anchor points that are reasonably coherent networks of ideas and practices given what we know about children's learning and development. In the course of developing environmental

!//#,

science literacy children must extend their awareness of environmental systems, expand and reorganize their knowledge, and develop new forms of scientific practice.

We recognize that any attempt we make to describe a learning progression will in some ways be inadequate and incomplete.3 Nevertheless, even an incomplete learning progression can play a useful role in prompting research questions and in guiding develop of curriculum and assessments.

In this section we describe in general terms how students’ reasoning about environmental systems could progress from elementary through high school. In general we describe how students’ growing experience with environmental systems can provide a basis for the development of more sophisticated knowledge and practices over time. In our descriptions we recognize four general strands of development: (a) the role of carbon and carbon-containing compounds in the functioning of plants and animals and of other environmental systems, (b) the role of water and substances carried by water in environmental systems, (c) the role of diversity in populations and ecosystems, and (d) the role of systems that provide human populations with food, water, shelter, energy, transportation, and waste disposal.What follows is just a placeholder pending development in paragraph form of accounts at each

level. I would like to see if we can develop accounts that cover systems, knowledge, and practices in an integrated way and that touch on all 4 strands at each level.

Elementary: Local experience and understanding of individual systems at a human scale

Elementary school students generally, and appropriately, focus their learning on systems at a human scale that they can observe directly (see list below). Detailed experience with these systems and opportunities to describe the systems, their functioning, and how they change over time provide the experiential base for the development of formal scientific models in the middle and high school years. They begin to use mathematical tools to describe the systems they observe more precisely. We hope to encourage their curiosity about how and why the systems work and change, but not to present formal models (e.g., atomic molecular theory) before they can link those models to their own experiences.

1. Non-living materials. Students learn to describe these materials in terms of their properties (e.g., measuring length, weight, volume), to describe changes in these materials, and to see patterns in properties and changes.

a. Soil (fertility, composition)b. Water (changes of state, quality/composition, location, movement)c. Air (conditions, quality/composition, movement)d. Materials in human systems (fuels, metals, wood, plastics)

2. Living organisms. Students observe a variety of living organisms in controlled and natural settings. They describe the organisms in terms of properties, structures, and functions (needs, structures and functions, adaptations, diversity, relationships to other

3 We wish to develop descriptions of students’ knowledge and practice that recognize the complex organization of meaningful scientific knowledge and practice. Furthermore, we would like to describe children’s knowledge and practice in ways that help us to see the continuities—and the discontinuities—between the reasoning of children of different ages. Inevitably, our descriptions must fail in some way; no organizational scheme can fully capture the organization of a child’s knowledge or its connections with children’s practices, with systems and phenomena in the material world, and with developmental changes over time. Finally, we know that no single learning progression will be ideal for all children, since children have different instructional histories, bring different personal and cultural resources to the process of learning science, and learn in different social and material environments.

!//#,

organisms). They also describe patterns of change over time (e.g., growth, life cycles, death and decay).

a. Plants b. Animals c. Decomposers/decomposition processes

3. Human systems. Students study the origins of human goods and services, including ways that our goods and services are linked to natural environmental systems, how they are distributed among people, and how they move geographically.

a. Foodb. Waterc. Electricity and gasolined. Waste disposal

4. Environmental systems. Students study systems that connect non-living materials, living organisms, and/or human systems.

Middle school: Using scientific models to explain and connect systemsAt the middle school level students continue to extend their experience with

environmental systems and to learn to observe and describe their properties and how they change with greater precision. At the same time, they begin to make use of formal scientific models to connect systems that they formerly saw as separate and to explain how those systems work.

1. Non-living materials. Students learn to see gases as materials like solids and liquids and to trace substances through changes in materials, including chemical and physical changes in and out of the gas state (e.g., combustion, evaporation, condensation). They use atomic molecular models to explain properties of materials, to describe materials in terms of the substances they contain, and to distinguish between pure substances and mixtures. They recognize that some substances, such as food and water, can be traced through living organisms and human systems.

2. Living organisms. Students learn to explain how living organisms exchange matter among themselves and with the non-living environment, and to connect those changes in matter with the structure, function, and changes in organisms. They begin to explain how heredity and environment interact to determine the traits of individual organisms, and to describe the diversity of traits among individuals in populations.

3. Human systems. Students learn to describe supply chains and waste disposal chains for a variety of goods and services, and to trace substances through those supply and waste disposal chains. They begin to study ecosystem services—the ways that ecosystems support human life—and the ecological footprints of human goods, services, and lifestyles.

High school: Integrated understanding of local environmental systems in contextStudents at the high school level learn to make use of archived data from a variety of

sources, and to find patterns in those data mathematically. They learn to describe human-scale systems within the context of a hierarchy of systems ranging in scale from atoms and molecules to the earth as a whole. They learn how mathematical models can be used to predict future changes in those systems, and how to appreciate the uncertainties in both the models and the data

!//#,

that they use. They appreciate the role and the limits of scientific data, models, and arguments in becoming environmentally responsible citizens.1. Types of systems

a. Terrestrial: local; agricultural, natural, urban/transportationb. Aquatic: local; river/stream/pond/lake; wetlands/estuaryc. Ocean

2. Structurea. Living communities (consider metabolism/growth, adaptations, diversity, roles in

community)i. Plants/producers (including crops and ornamental plants)

ii. Animals/consumers (including humans and domesticated animals)iii. Microbes/decomposers (including disease vectors)

b. Non-living environment (consider composition, pools)i. Earth (including human buildings and infrastructure, detritus)

ii. Air (including products of human activity)iii. Water (including surface, atmospheric, ground water and materials carried by

water)3. Function

a. Movements and changes in matter and energyi. Carbon (including matter cycling, human food, fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2)

ii. Water (including surface water, ground water, water cycle, oceans, human water systems)

iii. Substances carried by air and water (including sediments, pollutants, CO2)b. Growth and reproduction of organisms (including adaptations to particular niches and

habitats, population interactions)c. How environmental systems support human populations (supply chains, waste

disposal chains, ecosystem services, ecological footprint for human goods and services)

i. Life: food, clothing, shelter, clean air, clean waterii. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness: travel, leisure, lifestyle

iii. Distribution of goods and services among different individuals or groups of people

4. Patterns of changea. Dynamics of change in local environmental systems: Change in environmental

systems is characterized by:i. Multiple patterns of causation: any change in one part of the system causes

changes in many other parts of the system.ii. Emergent character of changes in systems. For example, changing the

behavior of individuals can cause unexpected changes in characteristics of the system as a whole.

iii. Positive and negative feedback loops. Changes can lead to other changes that either diminish or magnify the original change.

!//#,

b. Scale of changei. Size: Relationships among changes in systems at local, regional, and global

scalesii. Time: Relationships among changes at short, intermediate, and evolutionary

time scalesc. Predicting change

i. Uses of models to predict changes at different scalesii. Uncertainties due to limitations in data or models

iii. Understanding alternative courses of action or policies

!//#,

Concluding ThoughtsThe responsibilities of environmental literacy fall most heavily on those of us who have

the most choices. Our wealth and power will make it possible for us to assure that the environmental consequences of our actions initially fall most heavily on people in other countries throughout the world, or upon those people within our own country who possess the least wealth and power. Those consequences are currently hidden from most of our citizens, but our collective ignorance does not lessen the effects of our actions. Our collective futures depend on how well we can educate ourselves about the consequences of our actions and act accordingly.

ReferencesAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science

literacy. New York: Oxford University Press (http://project2061.aaas.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.html).

Anderson, C. W. (2004). Science education research, environmental literacy, and our collective future Presidential Address to the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. NARST News, 47(2).

Anderson, C. W. (2005). Teaching science for motivation and understanding East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University (http://www.msu.edu/course/te/407/FS05Sec3/te408/readings.htm).

Anderson, C. W., Mohan, L., and Sharma, A. (2005, August). Developing a Learning Progression for Carbon Cycling in Environmental Systems. Prepared for the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America, August 9, 2005, as part of the symposium, Pathways to Scientific Teaching in Ecology Education, Montreal, Canada.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching: The ways of knowing. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Catley, K., Lehrer, R, and Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a Prospective Learning Progression for Developing Understanding of Evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement.

Coyle, K. (2005, September). Environmental literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the US. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.

Egan, K. (1983). Children's path to reality from fantasy: Contrary thoughts about curriculum foundations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(4), 357-371.

Egan, K. (1985). Teaching as story-telling: A non-mechanistic approach to planning teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1?(4), 397-406.

Egan, K. (1987). Literacy and the oral foundations of education. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (4), 445-472.

Egan, K. (1998). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

!//#,

Enfield, M. (2004). 'It just flies:' Joint construction of accounts in elementary science classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70.

Gross, P. R. (2005, December). The state of state science standards: 2005. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Gross, P. R. (2005, October). Less Than Proficient: A Review of the Draft Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Inagaki, K, and Hatano, G. (2002). Young children's naive thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press

Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Freeman.

Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., and Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental values and American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html).

NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (2003, January). Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century. National Science Foundation

Olson, M. (2005). Interns’ narrative and paradigmatic ways of knowing science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Pickering, A. (1993). The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science. The American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559-589.

Pozo, J. I., & Gomez Crespo, M. A (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: The consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 351-387.

Project 2061 (2003). Final report: AAAS Conference on Improving Science Textbooks through Research and Development Washington, DC: AAAS Project 2061

Rath, A., and Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry: A microanalysis of elementary studetns' orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1083-1099.

Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., and Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 859-882.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., and Wolfe, R. G (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sharma, A., and Anderson, C. W. (2003). Transforming scientists’ science into school science. Presented as part of the Paper Set: A Longitudinal Study of Science Teacher Preparation at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, March 23-26, 2003.

!//#,

Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., and Krajcik, J. (in press). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives..

Valverde, G. A., and Schmidt, W. H. (2000). Greater expectations: Learning from other nations in the quest for world-class standards in US school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 651-687.

Vitousek, P., Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A. H. and Matson, P. (1986). Human appropriations of the products of photosynthesis. http://dieoff.org/page83.htm.

Wackernagle, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B. C., Canada.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A.S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.

Weart, S. (2003). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (December 12, 2001). Vanishing point: On Bjorn Lomberg and extinction. Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/point/).

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wilson, M. & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181-208.

!//#,

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/point/

Appendix A: Learning Progression Notes for InquiryWorking group members: Andy Anderson, Kristin Gunckel, Valencia Moses

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances

Lower Anchor: Informal Learning from Experience

Possible Progress Variables

Assessments

Teaching Ideas

!//#,

Appendix B: Learning Progression Notes for CarbonWorking group members: Lindsey Mohan, Chris Wilson, Hui Jin, Jing Chen, Valencia

Moses (MSU), Karen Draney, Jinnie Choy (Berkeley), Phil Piety (UM)

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning PerformancesApplying fundamental

principles……to processes in coupled human and natural systems

Type of Principle

Fundamental principles

Carbon Dioxide

Living systems: Producers, consumers,

decomposers

Engineered systems: Energy,

transportation, agriculture

Structure: Hierarchy of

Systems

Microscopic Properties of atoms and molecules, CO2

Cell structure, biomolecules; Invisible single & multi-cellular organisms: decomposers

Materials in engineered systems: Fossil fuels

Macroscopic Physical and chemical properties of materials, fossil fuels

Visible multi-cellular organisms

Energy sources (gasoline); Energy users (automobiles, appliances) & energy deliverers (factories, power plants)

Large scale Matter pools Populations, ecosystems

Large engineered systems: agriculture; fossil fuel systems

Constraints on

Processes

Tracing Matter: Carbon

Fossil fuels, soil carbon, atmospheric CO2

Ecological carbon cycling, growth, matter transformations, photosynthesis & respiration, detritus

Fossil fuel systems, air quality, agricultural practices & deforestation, combustion, soil respiration

Tracing Energy Ecological energy flow, photosynthesis & respiration

Human energy systems & combustion; energy resources (petroleum)

Change over Time

Multiple Causes, Feedback Loops

Global Warming

!//#,

Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Plants, Animals, CombustionSee NARST and ESA Carbon papers

Possible Progress VariablesSee working papers on progress variables

AssessmentsSee assessments on EL websiteSee ideas about gaps in assessments and additional items

Teaching IdeasSee summary of carbon-related units by Lindsey Mohan

!//#,

Appendix C: Learning Progression Notes for EnergyWorking group members: Hui Jin, Jing Chen, Valencia Moses

Abstract: This paper, which is part of an ongoing Environmental Literacy Research Project, outlines our approach to energy in coupled human and natural systems. In particular, we are interested in how students understand energy conservation and degradation as the constraints on processes, and how they use these two principles to reason across microscopic, macroscopic, and large scales. We suggest a learning progression, which is anchored on the low end by students’ informal conceptions of energy and causal mechanisms, and on the high end by our expectation that students use energy as a conceptual tool to analyze processes in coupled human and natural systems. Our instructional approach is aimed at facilitating the transition from the low end to the high end. We suggest that the beginning of a transition can be the identification of indicators and sources of energy. Students can gradually develop abilities to describe energy transformations with the focus on two constraints: Energy is transformed instead of being created or destroyed. In every process of energy transformation, there is always some energy dissipating as heat. We are using this framework to develop pre-assessments, teaching experiments, and post-assessments that will be administered during the 2006-2007 academic year.

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning PerformancesSee also: Appendix with representations of energy in living and human systemsAnderson (1994) found that students’ low level engagement in scientific activities is

mainly caused by their inability to master the unique ways of scientific thinking. We identify two important aspects of scientific ways of thinking with respect to energy in environmental systems: 1) understanding the “hard core” of thermodynamics and 2) reasoning about causality at three scales systemically.

Lakatos’ (1978) examination of the methodology of scientific research programs sheds lights on understanding scientific ways of thinking. For Lakatos, all scientific research programs are characterized by the “hard core.” Scientists build a protective belt, which is a group of concepts and hypotheses to defend the hard core against criticism and rival theories. Thus, scientific ways of thinking can be interpreted as understanding the hard core and how subsidiary concepts are used to protect the hard core.

Traditionally, energy is taught in school through introducing a sequence of relevant concepts – energy definition, forms of energy, work, heat, energy conservation, and energy degradation. Many progressive approaches focus on reorganizing the sequence of the concepts. Instead of treating all these concepts equally, we argue that learning energy should focus on understanding and applying the hard core.

In thermodynamics, the branch of physics that deals with energy, there are two key principles: energy conservation and energy degradation. All the concepts addressed above, even the definition of energy, are involved in the two principles. In fact, the two principles are actually two aspects of one big idea in that they constrain the same processes in two different ways. On one side, the total energy is conserved. On the other side, the available energy tends to decrease. Thus, we argue that the “hard core” is energy as an invisible constraint that determines which changes cannot happen. In all branches of science, energy as an invisible constraint can help us understand what processes are possible and what the consequences of processes may be.

Grotzer and Basca (2003) argue that students’ difficulty with ecosystem stems from their inability to reason about causality systemically – using the causal pattern to connect micro-level

!//#,

Energy gas

Cau

sal P

atte

rn: E

nerg

y as

invi

sibl

e co

nstra

int

reasoning with macro-level reasoning. Inspired by their study, we think it is important that students use the idea of energy as an invisible constraint to reason across three scales – microscopic, macroscopic, and large.

In our work, we bring together the two aspects of scientific ways of thinking described above with the framework of our environmental literacy research project. In the project, we argue that students need to engage in key practices to achieve environmental science literacy (Anderson et al., 2006). In the practice of learning and applying scientific accounts, which is the focus of this paper, three principles are emphasized: structure of systems, constraints on processes and change over time. We now address these principles with respect to energy in coupled human and natural systems.

1. Structure of systems – reasoning about causality systemicallyIn the project, we address environmental systems at three scales: large, macroscopic, and

microscopic. While students tend to construct explanation at macroscopic scale, we expect they can recognize the causality at microscopic and large scale.

2. Constraints on processes – energy as an invisible constraintA common pattern of causality at each of the three scales is energy as a constraint.

Energy constraining processes at the microscopic scale determines what events are possible at the macroscopic scale and how human activities impact the environment at a large scale. Energy constrains processes in two ways. First, total energy is conserved. Second, available energy tends to decrease.

3. Change over timeIn current trends, the total amount of energy consumed in human engineered systems is

increasing. This results in a change in Earth’s atmospheric temperature over time. Systematically understanding energy as an invisible constraint is a pre-requisite for a sophisticated understanding of the human impact on environment over time.

In brief, we expect that students can gradually develop the ability to use energy as a conceptual tool to analyze processes in environmental systems. This includes using the idea of “energy as an invisible constraint” to reason systemically and understanding human impacts on the environment over time. This idea is elaborated in Table 1.Table 1. High End: Using energy as a conceptual tool to analyze processes in environmental systems

Scale Focus ConstraintEnergy conservation Energy degradation

!//#,

Large Interactions between human and natural systems (e.g. energy crisis, global warming)

Energy flow in ecosystem: Energy cannot be created by any organism. It only flows from one organism to another. Energy flow in human engineered system: Energy flow from energy sources to power plants to household appliances. Energy flow with respect to car running. Humans can only change energy from one form to another. No energy can be produced without using energy sources in the natural systems.

Energy dissipating in ecosystem: When energy flows from plants to decomposers, part of the energy from lower level organisms becomes unavailable for higher level organisms to use. Energy dissipating in human engineered system: There is always energy dissipating as heat in the processes of generating electricity, using electricity, and running cars.

In every step of energy flow in ecosystem and human engineered system, there is always some energy dissipating as heat. New technology can increase the efficiency of using energy, but humans cannot fully utilize all the energy in resources.

Distinguish between energy source and energy resource and recognize that energy resources come from nature and can be depleted

Macroscopic Events in physical, living, and engineered systems (e.g. eating food, car running, power plants generating electricity, using refrigerator, air conditioner)

Human and other organisms use energy released in chemical reactions (e.g. combustion and cellular respiration). Plants harness energy from sunlight through photosynthesis. The energy released or harnessed must come from reactants or other energy sources like sunlight.

In combustion and cellular respiration, there is always some energy dissipating as heat.

Microscopic Processes (e.g. combustion, cellular respiration, photosynthesis.)

Chemical changes always involve energy absorbing or releasing. PhotosynthesisLight energy is required when plants make high energy bonds (C-C, C-H) substances from low energy bond (H-O, C-O) substances Combustion and cellular respirationEnergy is released when high energy bonds (C-C, C-H) substances change into low energy bond (H-O, C-O) substances.

In combustion and cellular respiration, there is always some energy dissipating as heat.

!//#,

Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Energy and Causes of ProcessesTraditional researches on energy tend to focus on students’ informal ideas of energy. In

our prior research, we find that students use energy as an expedient concept to explain various phenomena in their daily life. Usually, there is no coherent meaning for energy. Students’ conception of energy varies according to different situations and depends on how energy concept can be helpful to make their explanation convincible. For example, energy can be treated as “vital forces” created by living organisms (Barak et al., 1997), when students are asked to explain where the energy of human activities comes from. When there is invisible reactants or products (e.g. gas) in chemical reactions, energy can be used as substitute, so that “matter” conserves (Mohan et al., 2006). For example, we asked students: when a person loses weight, where does the fat go? More than one third of middle and high school students questioned replied that fat turned into energy and then was used up by doing exercises. Thus, we think it would be more effective to shift the focus from alternative conceptions of energy to the role energy plays in causal mechanism.

Grotzer and Basca (2003) reveal that students tend to reason locally and miss the system level interactions. That is, micro-level causality leads to the macro-level consequence. Our previous research on student conceptions of matter indicates a similar pattern – students tend to reason at the macroscopic level intuitively and seldom analyze macroscopic events in terms of microscopic processes. Energy is often used expediently to explain various macroscopic phenomena.

Possible Progress VariablesUnderstanding energy as a constraint at the microscopic scale is fundamental to

understanding macroscopic events and the interaction between human and natural systems at the large scale. However, students seldom reason at the microscopic scale. Thus, our instructional approach starts with student understanding of energy as constraint on processes at microscopic scale and use the microscopic scale causality to reason about macroscopic events. The key principles used to reason events are: 1) Energy is transformed instead of being created or destroyed. 2) In every process of energy transformation, there is always some energy dissipating as heat.

Nordine et al. (2006) use the idea of an “indicator” – the observable evidence of different forms of energy - to facilitate students’ understanding of energy conservation. Borrowing their idea of an indicator, we think that using energy as an invisible constraint at the microscopic scale can be achieved by introducing four concepts sequentially: indicators of energy, the energy source and resource, energy transformation, and heat transfer. We suggest that the beginning of the transition can be the identification of energy sources and indicators of energy in human and natural processes. It is desirable for students to distinguish between energy sources and resources. The former can be anything that provides energy, while the latter specifically refers to the natural resources that human use. The concept of energy resource is helpful for students to understand how human harvest energy from natural resources and finally turn it into heat which is unavailable for future use. The second step is that, at upper elementary and middle school level, students gradually develop abilities to describe energy transformations associated with processes. At high school level, we expect students to establish a sound understanding of energy as constraint at microscopic and macroscopic scale. At this level, we also introduce large-scale environmental issues such as energy crisis and global warming.

With respect to each of the concepts, students are expected to generate a sound understanding of relevant questions: 1) Indicators: Is energy involved? How do you know? 2)

!//#,

Sources: Where does energy come from? 3) Resource: What is the energy resource in the event? 4) Transformation: What happens to energy during the processes? 4) What is the evidence of heat transfer? This idea is elaborated in Table 2. The appropriate level of understanding energy is elaborated in Table 3.

Table 2: Instructional approach to energy in environmental systemsEvents (Macroscopic)

Processes(Microscopic)

Indicator Source Resource Constrain: Energy Transformation

Constraint: Energy degradation

Car running Combustion Motion Gasoline Crude Oil

Chemical energy kinetic energy

Engine becomes hot

Power plants generating electricity

Combustion Fire, light

Fossil fuels Fossil fuels

Chemical energy electrical energy

Power plants use cooling tower or water as coolant.

Plants growing Photosynthesis Growth Sunlight Sunlight Light energy Chemical energy

N/A

Human/Animal eating food & doing activities

Cellular respiration

Activity Glucose/ATP Sunlight Chemical energy kinetic energy

Temperature of body increases

Burning match Combustion Fire, light

Wood cellulose

Sunlight Chemical energy light & sound energy

Fire

Table 3. Appropriate level of understanding energy in K-12 Schools Indicators Source Resource Transformation Energy Degradation

ElementaryMiddle High

Assessments

Teaching Ideas

ReferencesAnderson, C. W. (1994). Engagement in explanation and design in middle school science. Paper

presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Anderson, C. W., Sharma, A., Mohan, L., Cho, I.-Y., Jin, H., Wilson, C., et al. (2006). Overview

of NARST multiple paper set: Learning progressions toward environmental literacy. Paper presented at the NARST, San Francisco.

Barak, J., Gorodetsky, M., & Chipman, D. (1997). Understanding of energy in biology and vitalistic conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 21-30.

Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students' understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16-29.

!//#,

Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mohan, L., Sharma, A., Cho, I.-Y., Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2006). Developing a carbon cycle learning progression for K-12. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.

Nordine, J., Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2006). The impact of a novel approach to energy on middle school students' conceptions of energy. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, California.

Watts, D. (1983). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18(5), 213-217.

!//#,

Appendix D: Learning Progression Notes for WaterWorking group members: Beth Covitt, Kristin Gunckel, Hasan Abdelkareem, Rebecca

Dudek (MSU), Alan Berkowitz (BES), Ali Whitmer, Jenny Dugan (SBC)

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning PerformancesApplying principles and processes to coupled human & natural systems.Class of Principles

Principles Atmosphere Surface water Groundwater Engineered systems

Structure of systems

Atomic molecular

states of water (gas, liquid, solid)

states of water (liquid, solid)

Macroscopic clouds forms of

precipitation

lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, oceans, etc.

porosity, permeabilitytransmissibility

sources of water. structures for obtaining,

moving, storing, cleaning water (e.g. wells, water pipes, dams, water towers, drinking water and waste water treatment).

Large scale weather & climate system

watersheds aquifers, aquitards landscape-scale systems that move water within and across watersheds.

Constraints on processes

Tracing matter: Water

condensation, evaporation, melting, freezing, sublimation at all scales

conservation of matter.

changes of state at all scales.

conservation of matter.

infiltration unconfined

and confined flow

flow between natural and engineered systems

Tracing matter: Other substances

acid rain conservation

of matter

solutions, solubility, mixtures, suspensions, etc.

sediment transport

diffusion

solutions, solubility, mixtures, suspensions, etc.

Solution, distillation, filtration, disinfection

Tracing energy heating & cooling,

differential solar input

gravity flowheating & cooling,

hydraulic head gravity flow engineered energy

systems

Change over time

Multiple causes, feedback loops

climate change erosion depositio

n

draw down and groundwater mining.

changes in water quantity and quality in a local area.

Atmospheric System:

Main Ideas:Structure: Water exists in the atmosphere in gaseous, liquid, and solid states.

Atomic-Molecular Scale: Water exists as individual water molecules. Their state is dependent on the kinetic energy of the water molecules. Water molecules that move/vibrate slowly but are held in rigid contact with each other exist in the frozen state.

!//#,

Water molecules that can move/vibrate past each other but still remain in contact with each other exist in the liquid state. Water molecules that move/vibrate very fast and can move free of each other are in the gaseous (vapor) state. Water vapor molecules move faster than water molecules in the liquid state, which move faster than water molecules in the solid state.

Macroscopic Scale: Gases have neither fixed volume nor shape; liquids have fixed volume, but not fixed shape, solids have fixed volume and shape.

Water molecules in the liquid and solid states in the atmosphere come together to form clouds and precipitation (rain, snow, sleet, hail).

Large Scale: Water is distributed unevenly through the atmosphere depending on both weather and climate factors. Individual air masses may be more or less saturated with water.

Processes – Tracing Water: Water moves in and out of the atmospheric system and within the atmospheric system. Water within the atmospheric system can change state. These processes can be described at the different system scales.

Atomic-Molecular Scale: The processes involved in changing state (evaporation, condensation, melting, freezing, sublimation) happen at the atomic-molecular level. As energy is added to the system in the form of heat, individual water molecules begin to vibrate faster. If enough energy is added, the water molecules will move from solid to liquid state (melting), liquid to gaseous state (evaporation), or solid to gaseous state (sublimation). Conversely, when heat is removed (cooling), moving water molecules will slow and move from a gaseous to liquid state (condensation), liquid to solid state (freezing), or gaseous to solid state (sublimation).

Macroscopic Scale: Water moves into the atmosphere from the surface water system and from living systems. Liquid water in the surface water system can evaporate into the atmosphere to become water vapor. Water from plants transpires as a gas into the atmosphere. Animals also respire water vapor.

When water vapor cools, it condenses into a liquid. If condensation happens within the atmosphere, on small particles of dust (condensation nuclei), clouds form. These tiny water droplets collide, forming larger liquid droplets. When water droplets freeze, they form ice. Condensation can also move water from the atmospheric system to the surface water system.

Water droplets can fall from the clouds in the form of precipitation. When precipitation falls as a liquid, it is rain. When rain freezes, it becomes sleet or hail. Sleet and snow can melt within the atmosphere and become liquid water. Water vapor can also cool to the solid state through the process of sublimation. Sublimated water vapor can form ice clouds and can fall as precipitation as snow.

Large Scale: Water moves in and out of the atmosphere and within the atmosphere with large scale weather systems.

!//#,

Processes – Tracing Other Substances: Conservation of mass dictates that water that moves from the surface to the atmosphere through the process of evaporation leaves behind, on the surface, any substances that were dissolved in it or mixed with it.

Water vapor that condenses on nucleation sites within the atmosphere will combine with those substances through solution and mixing. The resulting clouds and precipitation will have a slightly acidic pH. Humans can affect the pH of precipitation by introducing substances (e.g. sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide molecules) into the atmosphere.

Energy: Energy is required for melting, evaporation, and sublimation (solid to gas). In these cases, energy is transformed from heat energy into kinetic energy. Energy is released through condensation, freezing, and sublimation (gas to solid). In these cases, kinetic energy is transformed into heat energy. Solar energy is the natural source for these changes of state.

Differential heating of the Earth’s surface drives the movement of water back and forth from the atmospheric system. Differential heating also drives the movement of air masses within the atmosphere.

Change Over Time: The distribution of water in the atmosphere (among states and spatially) is affected by climate change. Climates evolve naturally over time, depending on changes in atmospheric composition, ocean composition and processes and, continent arrangements. However, climate can be affected by human actions which can disrupt natural climate change patterns and rates of change, subsequently changing distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere and other parts of the water cycle.

Examples of performances: 1. Explain how rain, hail, sleet, and snow form.2. Explain how volume of water in the atmosphere is related to climate and could be affected by

climate change.3. Explain common phenomena related to atmospheric water phase changes (e.g. how water

forms on the outside of a glass, why fog forms on a bathroom mirror, how a dehumidifier works, etc.)

4. Explain why polluted water does not lead to polluted rain.5. Explain how polluted air can lead to polluted rain.6. Explain why the ocean is salty (could also be included in surface water system).

!//#,

Surface Water/Watershed System:Main Ideas:Structure: The surface water system is connected to the atmospheric system and the groundwater system. Water can exist on the surface in liquid and frozen states.

Atomic-Molecular Scale: (See atmospheric system for description of states and changes of state).

Macroscopic Scale: (See atmospheric system for macroscopic description of states).

Water falling on the land either runs-off into the surface watershed or infiltrates into the groundwater system. Water that collects on the Earth’s surface in lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, creeks, and oceans is part of the surface water system.

Large Scale: A watershed is all of the surface area that drains water into a particular body of water. The high point between two watersheds is the watershed boundary or a water divide. Watersheds are nested within each other. Tributary watersheds are higher in the system than the river/stream they contribute to.

Processes – Tracing Water: Water moves in and out of the surface water system and within the surface water system. Water in the surface water system also can change state. These processes can be described at the different system scales.

Atomic-Molecular Scale: Liquid water can freeze to become solid ice. Solid ice can melt to become liquid water. (See atmospheric system for a description of these processes at the atomic-molecular scale.

Macroscopic Scale: Liquid water can freeze to become solid ice. Solid ice can melt to become liquid water.

Water enters the surface water system from the atmosphere through condensation and precipitation and the groundwater system through discharge from springs, marshes and streams, river, ponds, etc. Water moves downhill within the surface water system under the influence of gravity.

Large Scale: The force of gravity pulls water downhill from the highest elevations to the lowest elevations within a watershed. The rate and volume of run-off (discharge) in a watershed is affected by climate and precipitation volumes and rates, snowmelt volumes and rates, amount and type of vegetation, slope, and permeability of the surface (soil, rock, asphalt, etc.).

Water is not equally distributed across the Earth surface. Some areas have more surface water than other areas.

Processes – Tracing Other Substances: Water quality in the watershed is affected by natural processes and human activities. As water moves through a watershed, it carries materials with it in solution and in mixture.

Atomic-Molecular Scale: Still working on atomic-molecular explanations of substances, solutions, solubility, mixtures, suspensions, etc.

!//#,

Macroscopic Scale: Water carries with it sediment and other substances. As the water moves through the system, it picks up and deposits sediment according to energy required to move different size particles and other substances according to the chemistry of the water system. In still bodies of water (lakes, ponds), substances move through the process of diffusion.

Large Scale: Sediment and other substances move downhill through the watershed with the water.

Energy: Water within a watershed moves from the areas of highest potential energy to the lowest potential energy. Energy is required to move water uphill.

During melting, energy is required and is transformed from heat energy into kinetic energy. Energy is released through condensation and is transformed from kinetic energy to heat energy. Solar energy is the natural source for these changes of state.

Change Over Time: Watersheds and surface features of the Earth change naturally over time. Water erodes Earth materials from one location and transports it and deposits it in another location. Natural changes in weather and climate can also affect rate and volume of run-off and infiltration and water quality within a watershed. Human activities can also change the rate and volume of run-off, rate and volume of infiltration into the groundwater system, and quality of the water within a watershed.

Examples of performances:1. Explain where a river comes from and where it does.2. Given a discharge graph of a river or stream, explain daily, monthly, and annual fluctuations

in discharge. 3. Identify areas susceptible to flooding on a watershed map.4. Predict and explain how a pollutant will affect different communities and ecosystems within

the watershed.5. Predict how a proposed land-use (i.e. new parking lot, new gravel pit) in a given area could

affect run-off, infiltration, and water quality.6. Explain how one town’s wastewater could become another town’s drinking water.7. Explain how water shapes the land.8. Explain how water transports other substances, including sediment and pollution.9. Identify sources of surface water pollution and describe the pro’s and con’s of different

clean-up options.

!//#,

Groundwater System:Main Ideas:Structure: Water usually exists underground in the liquid state.

Macroscopic (and microscopic) Scale: Water exists underground in cracks and spaces within rocks or in spaces between sediment grains. Some of these openings are tiny (microscopic). Different types of rock and sediment have different porosity (size of openings), permeability (connectedness of the openings), and transmissibility (capacity to transmit water) values. In general, sedimentary rocks with larger grain sizes have lower porosity and higher permeability values. Sedimentary rocks with smaller grain sizes have higher porosity and lower permeability values.

Large Scale: Layers of rock or sediment from which water can be pumped or otherwise extracted are called aquifers. Layers of rock or sediment that store water but do not transmit water fast-enough for use are called aquicludes (or aquitards). Aquifers that are connected directly to the Earth’s surface are called unconfined aquifers. The surface of the saturated zone in an unconfined aquifer is called the water table. Aquifers that are beneath aquicludes are called confined aquifers. Groundwater can be pumped out of the ground through a pipe called a well.

Groundwater is not equally distributed. Some areas have more groundwater available than other areas.

Processes – Tracing Water: Water moves in and out and within the groundwater system. Water moves in and out at the boundaries with the surface water system or through the engineered system.

Macroscopic (and microscopic) Scale: Water infiltrates into the ground from rain soaking into the ground and through rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, etc. These areas are called recharge zones. Water leaves aquifers through discharge zones, usually springs, marshes, and some streams, rivers, lakes.

Water moves through some layers (usually sands, gravels, sandstones, conglomerates, or fractured rocks) more easily than other layers (usually clay, shale, unfractured rocks), depending on the porosity and permeability characteristics of the rock or sediment. In general, groundwater responds to gravity and flows in a downward direction, unless it encounters barriers.

Large Scale: Groundwater in unconfined aquifers generally follows the flow of surface water. Water in unconfined aquifers stays within the surface watershed in which it originated. Water in confined aquifers can flow across surface watershed divides, depending on the characteristics of the aquifer.

Processes – Tracing Other Substances: Groundwater can often be a good source of drinking water. However, water can contain other substances dissolved from the rocks underground (e.g. iron, fluoride, sulfur, salts). Sometimes, these naturally occurring substances make groundwater unsuitable for drinking. Groundwater can also become contaminated by human actions that introduce substances into the groundwater.

Humans can pollute groundwater. Water can dissolve substances and carry those substances with it as it moves underground. Anytime pollutants are left on the ground or buried, water coming in

!//#,

contact with them will carry some of the pollutants with it underground and potentially contaminate the aquifers. Polluted groundwater is very difficult and costly to clean up.

Atomic-Molecular Scale: Still working on atomic-molecular explanations of substances, solutions, solubility, mixtures, suspensions, etc.

Macroscopic and Large Scale: Introduced contaminants and other substances are transported by the water through the aquifer.

Energy: The energy responsible for groundwater flow is called the hydraulic head and is the sum of the gravitational potential energy and the pressure energy. In unconfined aquifers, the hydraulic head is just the gravitational potential energy and is related to elevation. Confined aquifers are often under pressure and differences in pressure also affect groundwater flow.

Change Over Time: Groundwater accumulates very slowly (over thousands and millions of years). Groundwater can be used faster than it is replenished. In the local area of wells, this phenomenon is called drawdown and results in actual depression of the water table. Continued drawdown over large areas over long periods of time can result in groundwater mining.

Examples of practices:1. Explain how groundwater exists and moves underground.2. Given a cross-section of a groundwater system or a surface map, identify potential well sites

and give pros and cons for well sites. 3. Given a cross-section of a groundwater system, explain the effects of nearby wells and

pumping rates on a given well and on the aquifer.4. Given a cross-section of a groundwater system, predict and explain how a pollutant will

affect different aquifers and wells.5. Given a cross-section of a groundwater system or a map of the equipotential surface, describe

the groundwater flow for confined and unconfined aquifers.6. Identify sources of groundwater pollution and describe the pros and cons of different clean-

up options.

Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Water in Environmental SystemsSee slides from GSA conference on EL website


AssessmentsSee assessments on EL websiteSee also Spanish water testSee also reports on Santa Barbara results (sample of students)

Teaching IdeasSee ideas developed by Beth, Kristin, Beckie Dudek

!//#,

Appendix E: Learning Progression Notes for DiversityWorking group members: Chris Wilson, Josie Zesaguli, Blakely Tsurusaki (MSU), John

Moore, Richard Jurin, Tony Pothoff (SGS), Cory Forbes (UM)The diversity strand of the Environmental Literacy Research Group is focused on

developing a K-12 learning progression for students’ understanding of the role of diversity in natural systems (from the role of genetic diversity in populations, to the role of biodiversity in ecosystems) and how human actions affect and interact with that diversity. Our work is organized around two anchors; an upper anchor that describes the goal - what we propose high school graduates should understand and be able to do; and a lower anchor – a description of what students actually understand and are able to do, based on the findings from assessments. This document includes a description and discussion on both of these anchors.

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning Performances

Genes Individuals Populations Ecosystems Engineered Systems

Systems Amino acids, DNA, genes, chromosomes, loci

Individuals as collections of traits, differences between species.

Genetic variation within populations

Producers, consumers, decomposers. Trophic levels. Relationships between species.

Agriculture

Tracing Information

Transcription, translation, meiosis, mutation recombination

Life cycles, reproductiongenetic inheritance

Sources of genetic variationSources of phenotypic variationG x E

Community structure, symbiosis, carrying capacity

Plant and animal breeding – artificial selection

Change over Time

Mutation, recombination

Life cycles, aging, environmental effects on phenotype

Evolution by natural selection, extinctions, changes in population size,

Succession, population dynamics,

Habitat fragmentationInvasive speciesPesticide resistanceArtificial selectionReductions in biodiversityCaptive breeding programs

Lower Anchor: Informal Reasoning about Structure-function Relationships, Life Cycles, and Diversity

!//#,


Systems Processes (Tracing Information)

Processes (Change Over Time)

Elementary 1. Levels of organization: individuals, species.2. Ways of describing organisms: phenotype, life cycle stage, kingdoms.3. Variation: phenotype within species, lifecycle stage within species, between species.

Parent – offspring.Food webs / chains.Life cycles.

Adaptations.Population size.Anthropogenic effects in

ecosystems.

Middle 1. Levels of organization: genes, individuals, populations, species, communities, ecosystems.2. Ways of describing organisms: phenotype/phylogenetic, life cycle stage, acquired vs. genetic, ecological.3. Variation: genotype in populations, species in communities.

Community structure.Genetic inheritance.Genetic and

environmental influences on phenotype.

Population level genetic variation and differential survival.

Population size and genetic variation.

Competition, predation, symbiosis.

Anthropogenic effects in ecosystems.

High 1. Levels of organization: alleles, genes, individuals, populations, species, communities, ecosystems.2. Ways of describing organisms: phenotype, life cycle stage, phylogenetic, acquired vs. genetic, ecological.3. Variation: genotype in populations, species in communities.

Community structure.Genetic inheritance.Genetic and

environmental influences on phenotype.

Homology / analogy.Reproduction, mutation.

Population level genetic variation and differential survival.

Population size and genetic variation.

Natural (and artificial) selection.Population dynamics of

competition, predation, symbiosis.

SuccessionAnthropogenic effects in

ecosystems.

AssessmentsSee also: Chris Wilson report on Michigan and Colorado data, Josie Zesaguli analysis of

Colorado pretests and posttests.Pattern of results for Colorado data. Students show:

Little progress on questions about systems significantly different from the ones they studied Some progress on questions about systems in general The most progress on questions about systems similar to the ones they studied

While the assessments used thus far were developed with the upper anchor in mind, the data from these assessments has led to greater clarification of this anchor in the form of defined progress variables and learning performances, as described in the summary paper below. As such, current assessment items need to be modified and new assessment items need to be written

!//#,

in order to have greater alignment between the assessments and progress variables. Through modifying items in this way, future data can be analyzed with respect to specific learning performances, and the effectiveness of teaching experiments can be evaluated with respect to specific criteria.

Teaching IdeasWe are currently developing materials for teaching experiments that will take place in fall

of 2006 and spring of 2007. These experiments will involve elementary, middle and high school teachers using materials designed to move students towards the upper anchors, and will focus on either within species diversity (primarily evolution by natural selection) or between species diversity (biodiversity and ecosystem processes). Since informed citizenship is an integral goal of the Environmental Literacy Research Group, the materials will be situated within contexts that connect natural and human systems. Our current thinking in this area is focused around human food systems – that is, how agricultural practices effect diversity within species, as well as biodiversity as a whole.

ReferencesAnderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., and Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory

of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(10): 952-978.Bishop, B. A., and Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural-selection and its role in evolution.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(5): 415-427.Brundby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science

Education 68: 493-503.Chan, K. S. (1998). A case study of a physicist's conceptions about the theory of evolution. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the National Association of Research and Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.Clough, E. E., and Driver, R. (1986). A study of consistency in the use of students' conceptual frameworks across

different task contexts. Science Education 70: 473-96.Clough, E. E., and Woodrobinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation.

Journal of Biological Education 19(2): 125-130.Cummins, C. L., Demastes, S. S., and Hafner, M. S. (1994). Evolution - Biological educations under-researched

unifying theme. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(5): 445-448.Lawson, A. E., and Wesser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: Effects of instruction and

reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 375-388.Rudolph, J. L., and Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its

implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(10): 1069-1089.Scharmann, L. C., and Harris, W. M. (1992). Teaching evolution - Understanding and applying the nature of

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(4): 375-388.Settlage, J. J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching 31(5): 449-457.Tamir, P., and Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena.

Science Education 75: 57-67.

!//#,

Appendix F: Learning Progression Notes for CitizenshipWorking group members: Blakely Tsurusaki, Beth Covitt, Lindsey Mohan

Upper Anchor: Principles, Processes in Systems, and Learning PerformancesWhat practices should informed citizens be able to do?

1. Understanding scientific content. Informed citizens understand the scientific concepts underlying how they interact with their environment. It is essential that they have an accurate understanding of the science that they can use as a basis for their decision-making and actions. Part of this involves having the skills necessary to investigate scientific ideas and concepts.

Practices: Model based reasoning helps you project the consequences of actions. (Apply – going from explanation to what would happen in the real world). 2. Evaluating evidence/Resolving conflicting claims. There may be dissent amongst

experts. Thus, informed citizens must be able to evaluate empirical evidence that supports and argument.

Practices: Dealing with uncertainty. Different people will be making different claims about data and models. Engaging in some of the practices that the scientific community uses to resolve conflicting claims.Some uncertainty is about arguments about interpretation of data: is it warmer today than 50 years ago? Is it really warmer today than 1,000 years ago?Some arguments about – what is the appropriate model to use to project into the future? Which media sources are more trustworthy (peer review)? Replication. Going back to data. 3. Deciding upon appropriate actions and/or policies. Citizens should understand the roles

that they play in society. Part of the role of a citizen in society includes balancing the good and goals of the various stakeholders in society (i.e., individual, family, community). Individuals need to be able to reconcile her/his values and the consequences of actions. This includes the ability to understand the likely environmental effects of actions, policies, and lifestyles, and to decide whether those effects are compatible with their values.

Practice: Some sort of cost benefit or risk analysis. Simply knowing consequences isn’t enough. Taking action is essential.

Lower Anchor: Informal Decision MakingPrevious work provides a starting point for this research. For example, we know that

individuals rely on different resources and strategies (epistemological stances) for developing their understanding of the world (e.g., Belenky, et al., 1986; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Perry, 1970). An individual’s epistemological stance reflects how they answer questions such as what makes for a good source of knowledge, what counts as evidence, how do I decide what’s true, how certain can anyone be about what is true? Scientists and non-scientists often answer these and other epistemological questions in very different ways. It is possible to help individuals develop epistemological stances that are more in line with standard conceptions of scientific reasoning, but such processes require concerted, long term educational efforts, and are never quick or easy (Smith & Anderson, 1999).

!//#,

We also know that people often make decisions about issues in ways that scientists would not consider to be purely rational or logical. Decision research suggests that people use two different kinds of processes as they reason and make decisions. One system is explicit and analytical; it is based on arguments about evidence, interests and values. The other system is tacit and experiential; it is based on individuals’ identities, emotions and personal affiliations (Slovic, 2006). When relying on the experiential system, individuals often rely on psychological biases or heuristics in decision-making. For example, social norms (e.g., identities and affiliations) can play a large role in how people make decisions (Fleming, et al., 2004). In the experiential system, affect or emotion about an issue is also likely to outweigh logic as a factor in decision making (Arvai, 2004). Although all people use both systems under different circumstances, the analytical system is more often associated with scientific thinking, and the experiential system is more often associated with non-scientific or lay thinking and decision-making.

Thus, briefly, we know that scientists and non-scientists come to understand the world in different ways, use very different mental models to reason about the way the world functions, and consequently often make different decisions about what to do (Kempton, Boster, & Hartley, 1996). A mental model is, “a simplified representation of the world that allows one to interpret observations, generate novel inferences, and solve problems” (Kempton, et al., 1996, p. 10). Mental models are generated over time, as individuals actively make sense of their world and their experiences. Because individuals who share similar social groups, cultures, and environments often share similar experiences, they sometimes develop similar mental models for phenomena. When a similar mental model is shared within a group of people, it is referred to as a cultural model.

Both scientists and non-scientists use mental models because they are a useful tool for navigating what could otherwise be an overwhelmingly complex world (Kempton, et al., 1996). Although scientific models and mental models are both useful tools, they are sometimes at odds with one another. Furthermore, these differences often arise within the context of important science in social issues (e.g., teaching evolution in schools). When people are confronted with information that does not fit into their mental map, a common response is to dismiss or reject the new information (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). Unfortunately, this human tendency is in conflict with one important goal of science museums, which is to help visitors integrate more scientific understanding into their mental models. Thus, a corollary goal of this research is to use gained understanding of how nonscientists respond to science in social issues to help inform the creation of museum exhibits that, while scientifically sound, are also responsive to visitors’ mental and cultural models, and their ways of thinking and knowing.


Assessments

Teaching Ideas

!//#,

TE 401 Lesson Plans: Fall, 1997€¦ · Web viewDraft: Environmental Literacy Blueprint....

Documents

Transcript of TE 401 Lesson Plans: Fall, 1997€¦ · Web viewDraft: Environmental Literacy Blueprint....