1. A Model Based Reasoning by Introductory Students When Analyzing Earth Systems and Societal Challenges Lauren Holder (lnholder@tamu.edu), Bruce Herbert (herbert@geo.tamu.edu) Department of Geology & Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 Instructional Design and Activities and RubricRubric Exploratory Analysis Acknowledgement References Abstract Science, Technology, and Society Thank you to the TAMU Geology Department for letting me experiment on your students, and thank you to Dr. Bruce Herbert for all of your wonderful ideas. Understanding how students use their conceptual models to reason about societal challenges involving societal issues such as natural hazard risk assessment, environmental policy and management, and energy resources can improve instructional activity design. This can improve student motivation and earth science literacy. To address questions of student conceptual modeling, we created four laboratory exercises for introductory physical geology using situated cognition theory that engages students in authentic scientific practices and design within the context of significant sociotechnical issues facing society. Our case-study design allows us to investigate the various ways that students utilize model based reasoning to identify and propose solutions to societally relevant issues. “Building students’ appreciation for the integration of science, technology, and society is based on the problems and situations that they examine or experience both inside and outside of the classroom” (College Board). Assaraf, Orit Ben ‐ Zvi, and Nir Orion. "Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42.5 (2005): 518-560. College Board (2009) Science: College Board Standards for Student Success https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-standards-2009.pdf https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-standards-2009.pdf Fichter, Lynn S., E. J. Pyle, and S. J. Whitmeyer. "Strategies and Rubrics for Teaching Chaos and Complex Systems Theories as Elaborating, Self-Organizing, and Fractionating Evolutionary Systems." Journal of Geoscience Education 58.2 (2010): 65-85. Herbert, Bruce E. "Student understanding of complex earth systems." Geological Society of America Special Papers 413 (2006): 95-104. McNeal, K. S., Miller, H. R., & Herbert, B. E. (2008). The effect of using inquiry and multiple representations on introductory geology students' conceptual model development of coastal eutrophication. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(3) 201. Mental Model Conceptual Model Model Based Reasoning Problem solving through Design STS Issues Anecdotal Evidence Naïve Conceptions Emotional Ideologies Cognitive Apprenticeship Successfully identifies and separates processes, mechanisms, and components of a system. Identifies and explains relationships between processes and components. Student can identify processes, mechanisms, or components of the system but not all. Students model may identify one process, mechanism, or component of the system. Student does not complete model. Identify and explain relationships, processes, and characteristics that change over time, can be cyclical in nature, and differ with respect to space, size, and location (when applicable). The student addresses both scale and time, but does not completely explore changes in space, size, location The model displays incorrect, poorly drawn, or naive conceptions about scale and time for processes and characteristics in the system or does not address either scale or time. Student does not complete model or does not show changes in scale or time for processes or characteristics in the system. Student uses evidence in their model and correct terminology and concepts. The student uses evidence- based claims from the conceptual model or other parts of the laboratory to answer societally relevant policy, management decisions, or grand challenges. Anecdotal evidence and emotional ideologies are kept to a minimum. The student uses adequate evidence in their model; however, the student may use incorrect terminology and may demonstrate naïve conceptions about the system. The student uses evidence-based claims from the conceptual model or other parts of the laboratory, but uses considerable anecdotal evidence and emotional ideologies to solve grand challenges. The student relies heavily on prior knowledge or past experiences, but still uses some evidence in their model. The student may also demonstrate naïve conceptions, incorrect terminology, and incorrect assumptions. The student does not use evidence-based claims and instead uses anecdotal evidence and emotional ideologies. The student does not draw a model or does not use evidence in their model or demonstrate any understanding of the material including a lack of terminology. The student does not answer any question regarding societal issues or grand challenges. Explanation of System Processes Explanation of Scale and Time Model Justifications Evidence- Based Claims 3 points2 points 1 point 0 points Rubric Category Student reviews material from laboratory manual prior to class Quiz on material Short introduction to topic (PowerPoint) Student interpret and graph data Student draws/writes conceptual model Student answers societally relevant questions or suggests solutions to societal grand challenges Evidence Based Claims Adapted From Herbert 2005, Fichter et al, 2010, McNeal et al 2008, and Assaraf and Orion 2005 Graphing DataInterpreting Data Time and Scale (1 point) System Processes (1 point) Time and Scale (3 points) 1 point2 points System Processes (3 points) Place-Based Learning with Authentic Data