Learning Progressions for Principled Accounts of Processes in Socio-ecological Systems Interactive Poster Symposium at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA, April 17-21, 2009 Website:

Plan for this Poster Symposium 1.Introduction (15 minutes) 2.Poster discussion (60 minutes) 3.Conclusion (15 minutes). The discussants (Richard Duschl and Joe Krajcik) and audience members will share thoughts.

Overview of Introduction What’s old: Continuing goals, frameworks, and methods What’s new in our models and frameworks Hypothesis: Alternate learning trajectories and teaching experiments What’s new in our results: Introductions to posters

What’s Old Continuing Models, Frameworks, and Methods

Definitions Environmental science literacy is the capacity to understand and participate in evidence-based discussions of socio- ecological systems. Learning progressions are descriptions of increasingly sophisticated ways of thinking about or understanding a topic

Learning Progression Framework (on Handout)

Development and Validation: An Iterative Process Develop initial framework Develop assessments (e.g. written tests, interviews) and/or teaching experiments based on the framework Use data from assessments and teaching experiments to revise framework Develop new assessments….

What’s New Models and Frameworks

What Progresses? Discourse: “a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group” (Gee, 1991, p. 3) Practices: inquiry, accounts, citizenship Knowledge of processes in human and environmental systems

Discourse: Force-Dynamic and Scientific Reasoning Informal (Force-dynamic) reasoning (cf. Talmy, Pinker) –Events or processes happen because actors use their powers or abilities to achieve their purposes –Actors have needs that enable them to achieve their purposes Scientific (principled or model-based) reasoning –Events or processes happen in hierarchically organized systems at multiple scales –Processes and systems conform to principles, including conservation of matter and energy, genetic continuity, etc.

(needs or enablers) (results that achieve purposes of actors) Actors With Abilities And Purposes In Settings A complete force-dynamic explanation describes actors, enablers, purposes, settings, and results Force-dynamic Accounts

(energy input) (energy output) (matter input) (matter output) Systems Following principles At multiple scales A complete scientific explanation describes processes constrained by principles in systems at multiple scales

Practices of Environmentally Literate Citizens Discourses: Communities of practice, identities, values, funds of knowledge Explaining and Predicting (Accounts) What is happening in this situation? What are the likely consequences of different courses of action? Explaining and Predicting (Accounts) What is happening in this situation? What are the likely consequences of different courses of action? Investigating What is the problem? Who do I trust? What’s the evidence? Investigating What is the problem? Who do I trust? What’s the evidence? Deciding What will I do? Deciding What will I do?

Knowledge: Processes in Socio-ecological Systems (Loop Diagram on Handout)

Processes and Principles (on handout)

Linking Processes: Example for Carbon (on handout) Black: Linking processes that students at all levels can tell us about Red: Lower anchor accounts based on informal cultural models Green: Upper anchor accounts based on scientific models

Levels of Achievement Level 4: Successful qualitative model-based reasoning about processes in socio-ecological systems (high school standards). Level 3: “School science” narratives of processes in systems (middle school standards). Level 2: Force-dynamic accounts: actors achieve their purposes through hidden mechanisms (elementary standards). Level 1: Force-dynamic accounts: actors achieving their purposes when their needs are met

Alternate Learning Trajectories and Teaching Experiments

Alternate Learning Trajectories LEVEL 4. Causal Reasoning Pattern: Successful Constraints on Processes Across Scales LEVEL 3. Causal Reasoning Pattern: Unsuccessful Constraints on Processes LEVEL 3. Causal Reasoning Pattern: Successful Constraints on atomic-molecular processes with limited detail s LEVEL 2. Causal Reasoning Pattern: Hidden Mechanisms involving changes of matter or energy LEVEL 2. Causal Reasoning Pattern: Macroscopic changes of matter/energy constrained by conservation laws LEVEL 1. Macro Force-dynamic Causation Structure-first Learning Trajectory Principles-first Learning Trajectory

Approaches to Teaching Structure first: Focus on structure and function; principles are mentioned, but not emphasized Principles first: Engaging students in principled reasoning by consistently using reasoning tools that embody principles

K-12 Teaching Tools for Carbon Process tool: embodies conservation of matter and energy at different scales Powers of 10 chart: embodies scale principle Molecular models: embody conservation of matter (atoms) principle PowerPoint presentations that use tools

Introductions to Posters

Using Knowledge and Practice When Making Decisions in Citizen Roles When presented with a socio-ecological issue, how do students… Investigate and explain the issue, and predict consequences of possible actions? Decide what to do? Draw on values and resources including those associated with in and out-of-school Discourses? Beth A. Covitt, Edna Tan, Blakely K. Tsurusaki, Charles W. Anderson

Mark, The Wrestler, Decides About Purchasing Strawberries Discourses: Mark is an athlete and member of a family concerned about healthy eating. These communities provide funds of knowledge about nutrition, which is something Mark values highly. Explaining and Predicting Mark traces food to factory, but not further… “they probably just factorize that and it’s not really polluting anything, making yogurt.” Investigating Mark seeks info about nutrition. He trusts product labels. Investigating Mark seeks info about nutrition. He trusts product labels. Deciding Chose food based on family values and athlete identity.

Michael, The Fisherman, Decides About A Bottled Water Issue Discourses: Michael participates in fishing and environmental behaviors with family. These practices and identity, as well as some school science, impacted his reasoning about issue. Explaining and Predicting Michael used knowledge of connected human and natural systems to reason about the issue and predict impacts on fish and ecosystem. Investigating Michael actively sought info from multiple sources and trusted sources based on reputation and bibliography. Deciding Drew on scientific Discourse and family-related values to decide to use precautionary principle.

Validation of a Multi-Year Carbon Cycle Learning Progression A closer look at progress variables and processes Lindsey Mohan, Jing Chen, Jinnie Choi, Yong-Sang Lee, Hamin Baek, & Charles W. Anderson Research Questions: Q1: Are there patterns in the way students account for matter and energy? Do they tend to score the same, higher, or lower on one or the other dimension? Q2: How consistent are students in terms of their accounts of processes? Are there patterns that indicate students understand some processes more or less than others?

Validation of a Multi-Year Carbon Cycle Learning Progression A closer look at progress variables and processes Latent Distribution of Persons Item Threshold Difficulties

Understanding of Carbon Cycling: Interview with US and Chinese Students Hui Jin, Li Zhan, Charles W. Anderson Six focal events that contribute to global warming: Tree growth; Baby girl growth; Girl running; Tree decaying; Car running; Flame burning Investigate students’ explanations of the focal events to interpret their underlying reasoning patterns.

Finding: Performance Patterns in the Data American and Chinese data indicate similar patterns in two aspects of performance--naming and explaining: –Naming: the performances of naming the relevant science statements, principles, concepts, and facts. –Explaining: the performances of constructing qualitative explanations based on different ways of reasoning.

Comparison 1.American and Chinese students’ explaining performances were very similar, with a majority of each group at level 2 -- relying primarily on hidden mechanism reasoning. 2.Naming performances were aligned differently for American and Chinese students. Students in both groups showed more level 3 and 4 naming performances than explaining performances, but the difference was much larger for Chinese students.

Do students in other countries under different science education systems still share similar patterns in their development of scientific knowledge and practice? Chinese students’ learning progression of carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems Chinese and American Learning Progressions

Wright map for Chinese studentsWright map for American students Wright maps for American and Chinese students’ responses Level 4: Model-based accounts Level 3: “School Science” Narratives Level 2: Causal Sequences of Events with Hidden Mechanisms Level 1: Separate Macroscopic Narratives

 American and Chinese students’ responses are distributed similarly across levels. For both groups, only a small proportion of students’ responses reach level 4.  More Chinese high school students gave level 3, level 4 responses. More American middle school students gave level 3 responses.  Both American and Chinese students shift toward higher levels from middle school to high school. The percentages of middle school students’ responses at each level The percentages of high school students’ responses at each level Distribution of American and Chinese students’ responses among levels

Secondary Students’ Accounts of Carbon-transforming Processes Before and After Instruction Research questions 1.How do students’ accounts of carbon-transforming processes in socio-ecological systems change as a result of instruction? 2.How are changes in students’ accounts of carbon- transforming principles related to differences in instructions?

Pre-Posttest Results

Are college students prepared to understand ecosystem carbon cycling? 8 professors at 8 institutions used our diagnostic questions clusters DQCs asked questions about –Photosynthesis, –Transformation, –Oxidation Questions posed at various scales from atomic-molecular to ecosystem. Pre-test Proportions of students using scientific, informal, or a mixed form of reasoning when asked questions about matter and energy

Hidden curriculum has to do with Principles –Conservation of matter –Conservation of energy –Ability to trace matter and energy across scales Princples-First Teaching Approach –Fewer details about structure and process –Make principles explicit and central –Give students practice using tools that embody principles for each process There is a “hidden curriculum” in Biology - So familiar to biologists that they are hardly aware that they use it - Assumed by biologists to be also understood by students - Not understood by students What can we do to help faculty and students uncover the hidden curriculum?

Jared, the Subway man lost a lot of weight eating a low calorie diet. Where did all the fat/mass go? A small acorn grows into a large tree. Where do you think the plant’s increase in weight comes from? The fat was converted into useable energy and burned up. Absorption of mineral soil via the roots Matter (in this case fat) can be turned into energy Plants gain their biomass from substances absorbed through their roots Question Generic Student Reponse Miscon- ception Two misconceptions that would be dispelled if the student practiced “Conservation of Matter” Adapted from Wilson et al. in prep

A Learning Progression for Water in Environmental Systems What Discourses do students bring to reasoning about the distribution and quality of water in socio-ecological systems? How do they reason about: water moving through connected systems substances that mix and move with water Kristin L. Gunckel, Beth A. Covitt, Tammy Dionise, Charles W. Anderson

Water Moving Through Connected Systems Can pumping water from a well affect a nearby river? No, the river can’t get to the well No, the well is too far away Yes, if the well taps an unconfined aquifer Force dynamic reasoning: Water exists in discrete visible locations Advanced force dynamic reasoning: Agents in closer proximity have more power Model based reasoning: Water is traced through connected systems, subject to constraints

Substances Mixing and Moving with Water Could polluted lake water turn Into polluted rain water? No, there is no way water can go back into the sky Yes, the water gets filtered before precipitation No, when the water the pollution is mixed with evaporates the chemicals that were in it will not Force dynamic reasoning: Water exists in discrete locations Advanced force dynamic reasoning: Agents change water using informal mechanisms Beginning model based reasoning: Substances are traced with macroscopic description through connected systems, subject to constraints

Which plants and animals would you include and exclude in your assembled forest? Explain. Lower anchor: “Lion King” reasoning “… And the polar bear once in a while needs to go swimming the waters, and the polar bear is used to cold climate water … If it goes swimming in the water, it might not like the water because it’s not the same kind as it’s used to. It’s not the same environment.” Biodiversity:What Belongs in a Forest? Josie Zesaguli, Edna Tan, Brook Wilke, Laurel Hartley, Jonathon Schram, Courtney Schenck, and Charles W. Anderson

Middle Levels: “Nature” Reasoning “ Because it needs to live in icy water. And there’s no icy water in the forest so he went out the window … ‘cause the temperature would still be too hot in the summer for the polar bear.”

Upper Anchor: Ecosystem Reasoning “Well it is a web, so the birds eat the termites; I don’t know, the lynx might eat the birds; the moose eat the trees; the voles eat anything they can get their hands on; who knows, maybe the wolves eat the lynx; and then when all these things die it all feeds the bacteria and the bugs and the insects…”

Thank You The posters in this symposium are the work of many people. In particular: Lindsey Mohan, Hui Jin, Edna Tan, Jing Chen, Josephine Zesaguli, Hsin-Yuan Chen, Brook Wilke, Hamin Baek, Kennedy Onyancha, Jonathon Schramm, and Courtney Schenk at Michigan State University Kristin Gunckel at the University of Arizona Beth Covitt at the University of Montana Laurel Hartley at the University of Colorado, Denver Blakely Tsurusaki at Washington State University, Pullman Rebecca Dudek at Holly, Michigan, High School Mark Wilson, Karen Draney, Jinnie Choi, and Yong-Sang Lee at the University of California, Berkeley. This research is supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation: Developing a Research-based Learning Progression for the Role of Carbon in Environmental Systems (REC ), the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science (ESI ), Learning Progression on Carbon-Transforming Processes in Socio-Ecological Systems (NSF ), and Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF ). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Website:

Extra Slides

Structure-First Teaching Teach structures of inputs, systems, products, multi-step processes Mention principles in teaching, but don’t harp on them Tell stories and ask test questions that students who have learned structures but still rely on force-dynamic reasoning can answer correctly

Principles-First Teaching Fewer details about structure and process Make principles explicit and central Students practice using tools that embody principles for each process Ask test questions that students who are committed to principles but don’t remember structural details can answer correctly

(energy input) (energy output) (matter input) (matter output) Name of Process: ______________ Scale: ______________

Powers of 10 Chart Atomic- molecular Benchmark Scales: MicroscopicMacroscopicLarge-scale

Level 1 Reasoning about the Carbon Cycle Animals, plants, and flames are all actors They all have different abilities (growing, moving, thinking, etc.) and different needs (air, water, food, sunlight) Different stories are accounts of how actors fulfill their purposes when their needs are fulfilled (Decay is different: it is a natural process that occurs when plants and animals lose their abilities to be actors.)

Level 2 Reasoning about the Carbon Cycle Animals Plants Carbon dioxide Oxygen Decay Plants NutrientsFood chains Sunlight The oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle Energy sources (needs) for plants: sunlight, nutrients, water Energy sources (needs) for animals: food, water Decomposers don’t need energy

Level 4 Reasoning about the Carbon Cycle Combustion, cellular respiration Photosynthesis Matter: CO 2, H 2 O, and minerals Matter: Organic matter & O 2 Biosynthesis, digestion, food webs, fossil fuel formation Movement of CO 2, H 2 O, and minerals Energy: Sunlight Energy: Chemical potential energy Energy: Work & heat