Views of Planet Earth: Systems Thinking In Earth Science ... · Web viewWords on maps Number of...

BERA Conference 2007Draft

Views of Planet Earth: Systems Thinking In Earth Science Education

Pilot Study

Lindsay Hetherington

University of Exeter

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007

Abstract

Constructivism is one of the leading paradigms in science education research, but has thus far focussed predominantly on students’ conceptions in particular areas of science. A new direction for research is the way in which students make connections and integrate aspects of science knowledge. This paper reports on pilot work conducted to trial research methods, initially aiming to investigate students’ perceptions of the earth informed by mental model theory and systems thinking. Results from a mixed method pilot study with 22 students aged 8-10 and 43 students aged 13-14 are presented, focussing on the use of concept mapping as a research tool. Drawings, questionnaires and interviews were also included in the pilot work and are discussed briefly. The research was conducted in three cycles; ongoing analysis and the resulting redesign of the research are discussed. Data are analysed using both quantitative scoring and qualitative techniques from a systems thinking perspective, and it is suggested that the concept mapping method developed during the study holds some promise as a major element of a mixed method approach for researching conceptual integration. As a result of limitations identified in the pilot study and an ongoing review of literature, it is suggested that a theoretical perspective mixing both individual and sociocultural constructivism is an appropriate direction for further work.

Introduction

Earth Science in the UK curriculum: current context and future direction?This study takes place at a time of some change in the socio-political context of UK education. The UK Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) recently reported on a consultation and review process resulting in changes to the National Curriculum,

Address for correspondence: School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter St Luke’s Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2PU. E-mail: [email protected]


where the emphasis is shifting from ‘content’ to ‘personalised learning and flexibility’: ‘To give schools greater flexibility to personalise learning experiences and meet their learners’ needs…the curriculum focuses on the key concepts and processes that underlie each subject…To further increase coherence from the learner’s perspective, the programmes of study encourage schools to make connections across events and activities, as well as subjects.’ (QCA 2007, p. 4). These changes suggest that research to understand more about the ways in which children make links between different aspects of their learning may be of use to both policy-makers and practitioners as the new curriculum is shaped and implemented.

Earth Science is one aspect of the curriculum in which some of the key concepts and processes outlined in the new programmes of study are shared between subjects. Science and Geography are the main disciplines in which the Earth Science is found in the national curriculum, but recent emphasis on citizenship and sustainable schools (DfES 2007) may broaden students’ experience of Earth Science. This reflects current direction in an ongoing debate about the status and purpose of science education and the question of how the curriculum caters for all students (Millar and Osborne 1998; Jenkins 2006). Environmental issues such as climate change are receiving attention on both national and global political stages, suggesting that Earth Science is likely to be of increasing importance in the context of the science for citizenship agenda.

Jenkins and Pell (2006) report on a survey of the environmental attitudes of 14-15 year old pupils in the UK (part of a wider international study into the Relevance of Science Education, or ROSE project), revealing significant differences in the attitudes of young people to the environment. The authors suggest that ‘The goal should be to enable students to engage in an informed conversation with expertise about the environment…To the extent that such education requires the accommodation of the personal, social and economic with the scientific as an integral whole, it constitutes a challenge to a conventional subject-based curriculum and pedagogy’ (Jenkins and Pell 2006, p. 777, my italics). This argument supports the need for research to understand young peoples’ construction of their conceptual understanding of the Earth and the way in which this understanding is integrated.

Theoretical Perspectives

The Systems Approach

‘…rather than reducing an entity to the sum of properties of its components, a system approach focuses on the arrangement of and relations among parts, which connect them into a whole’ (von Bertalaffny (1968), as cited in Raia 2005)

The evolution of the ‘systems approach’ is complex, with roots in many schools of thought, including mathematics, logic, biology, engineering, economics and the social sciences (Schwaninger 2006). Despite a variety of theoretical constructs used under the umbrella of ‘systems thinking’, Schwaninger notes that ‘the common denominator of the different system approaches in our day is that they share a worldview focused on complex dynamic systems…Therefore most of the systems approaches offer not only a theory but also a way of thinking…’ (Schwaninger 2006, p. 583). The quotation above demonstrates a fundamental aspect of systems thinking: that of


focussing on understanding the relationship between different parts of the system and the system as a whole.

Earth Systems Science

In considering the influence of a systems thinking perspective on the current research, systems theory as applied to earth science is key. The systems approach to Earth Science considers the earth (and its inhabitants) as a complex adaptive system where subsystems such as the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and Planet Earth = the Whole SystemSubsystems include: the Biosphere, Hydrosphere, Atmosphere, Geosphere. (this is a highly simplified view for the purposes of clear explanation of the main concept.) Each subsystem interacts with the others, forming a whole greater than the individual parts. Understanding these interactions is seen as a key aspect in understanding how the Earth as a whole works, and must of necessity bring together aspects of all the traditional sciences.

Examples:1. Meteorology Uses a systems approach to model the weather, including

considering the interactions between the hydrosphere (esp. oceans) and the atmosphere.

2. Volcanology Systems thinking can be used to aid prediction of volcanic eruptions by considering the interaction between the hydrosphere and the geosphere – the presence of water alters the melting temperature of rock.

biosphere are interlinked: understanding of the science of these systems can be enhanced by consideration of their interrelationship and placing the science in context (Table 1). It seems that the shift (encapsulated in Kuhn’s seminal work, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ (Kuhn 1970)) in the traditional western view of science as positivist and reductionist to the post-positivist view, recognising the non value-neutral nature of science and scientists’ work is mirrored by the shift from a

Table 1: Earth Systems Thinking

Biosphere Hydrosphere

Atmosphere Geosphere

Preinstalled User, 02/09/07,

Or should I use the term critical realist here – do they mean the same thing?


disciplinary view (e.g. of Geology, Meteorology etc) to an Earth System view which recognises humans as an integral part of the Earth System. Mayer (2002) notes that this holistic view is more in keeping with eastern philosophies of science and therefore bridges western and eastern worldviews. Mayer (1995) also argues that Earth Systems Science has the potential to provide a framework for integrated Science Education. This suggestion has been embraced by the Earth Science Education community internationally, with a number of countries involved in research and curriculum development using a systems approach to learning about Earth Science (Hyongyong 2002; Assaraf and Orion 2005; Chang 2005; Johnson 2006; Lucken, Hlawatsch et al. 2006).

Studies into Earth Systems Science education have used a wide range of methodologies, but the theoretical frame for these studies is not always clearly stated. The current study is placed within a post-positivist epistemology, reflecting the philosophy of the systems approach as applied to Earth Science. Scott (1996, pg 84) notes that ‘the post-positivist researcher is most likely to adopt a critical realist ontology, a modified/dualist objectivist epistemology and a methodology which embraces both quantitative and qualitative methods.’ This perspective recognises that the researchers are not value-neutral individuals but that knowledge is constructed socially. However, the research is seen as an attempt to investigate children’s knowledge and understanding of aspects of the world as a real entity that has an existence independent of human understanding.

Constructivism in Science Education

Students’ conceptions of Science and the way in which they construct knowledge has been one of the dominant research areas in Science Education since the 1970s. Taber (2006) has characterised constructivism in science education as a Lakatosian “Research Programme” providing an heuristic for research in the field where the original formulation of constructivism is informed by a range of perspectives. Theories of learning informing the range of constructivist approaches include the individual, Piagetian view with a focus on individual mental structures (mental models, schemas, alternative conceptions) and the sociocultural view originating with Vygotsky. The initial framework within which the research questions for this pilot study were framed focussed on the individual students and based the research questions and design on ‘mental model theory’. In part this was guided by previous work in the area of Earth Science learning examining students’ mental models of the Earth.

Mental model theory suggests that in order to understand the world, students construct internal mental models to explain and predict phenomena. These models are not usually scientifically accepted or self-consistent, and they are thought to be persistent. As a working theory, the idea of mental models is viewed as a promising line of research (Greca and Moreira 2000). Children are understood to be creating meaning based on personal experience of phenomena alongside construction of their ideas and models through social interaction. In Earth Science education, there has been some research into students alternative conceptions (Dove 1998), where the research has focussed on specific aspects of Earth Science such as Earth’s structure, with recent debate in this area proposing competing theories. Vosniadou and Brewer’s (1992) research suggested that children’s mental models are of a flat, flattened or hollow


earth, in contrast with the scientific view. Nobes, Martin & Panagiotaki (2005) challenge this, presenting findings suggesting that children’s knowledge of the earth prior to acquiring the scientific view is incoherent and fragmented rather than a naïve coherent mental model. Despite questions raised by Nobes about the validity of mental model theory in the context of the Earth, much recent research in science education has attempted to characterise children’s mental models of a number of scientific concepts (e.g. Shepardson, Wee et al. 2007). Indeed, the majority of research into students’ conceptions of science and construction of science knowledge have focussed on particular areas of science knowledge (examples include Solomon 1987; Driver 1994; Shepardson, Wee et al. 2007). However, as Taber argues, despite the fact that ‘one of the characteristics of science is that it produces a highly interlinked, and largely coherent body of knowledge’ (Taber 2005 p1) research into students’ integration of science concepts is limited, in part as a result of the complexities inherent in the topic.

Research Questions

The pilot study reported in this paper aimed to develop a mixed methods approach to answering questions about students’ construction of integrated science knowledge, focussing initially on techniques that could allow the following research questions to be answered:

What are students’ mental models of the Earth System? (RQ1) How do these models change, and what factors influence the

development of these models during students’ formal education? (RQ2)

Methodology

Mixed methods have been piloted both to allow for triangulation of the data and with the suggestion that different research methods provide different opportunities for insight into the students’ ideas: from a systems perspective it is argued that using mixed methods accesses different aspects of the ‘learning system’ to be understood. A combination of drawings, interviews, questionnaires and concept maps were used in the pilot phase, with the aim of creating an effective method for eliciting students’ thinking and to assess and improve the validity, reliability and trustworthiness of the data collection process.

The pilot was undertaken in an iterative fashion. The broad research questions outlined above were taken as the starting point; this required the pilot to include data collection from at least one KS2 and one KS3 class. Convenience sampling was used as a result of time considerations and because the work was exploratory in nature, which made it difficult to anticipate what follow-up work would be necessary. The collection and analysis of the data for the pilot study is the earliest phase of a cyclical research study, with the expectation that the research questions, data collection and analysis will continue to develop throughout. The data collected for this pilot work came from three classes:

1. A Year 4/5 class in an urban primary school. 22 students.2. A Year 9 class in a rural, mixed comprehensive. 27 students. 3. A Year 9 class in an urban single-sex grammar school. 16 students.


The design of the activities, including the prompts used and the amount of input the students received was an ongoing process of iterative data collection, reflection and analysis throughout the period of the pilot study; each school is therefore described as a ‘cycle’ of research.

This paper focuses on the development of the concept mapping method to investigate integrated knowledge construction, giving only a brief portrait of the students’ apparent perceptions gleaned from ongoing analysis of the pilot study data that will inform the next stages of the research.

Concept Mapping – a developing method for investigating integrated knowledge construction

Concept maps have been used in many studies for a range of purposes, including research (Mintzes, Wandersee et al. 2000). Concept maps as originally formulated (Novak and Gowin 1984) are made up of nodes (concepts) joined by lines labelled with linking words to create propositions. Novak and Gowin advocated drawing hierarchical concept maps. This requires particular care, since ‘concept map task variations will tap different aspects of the cognitive structure and lead students to produce different concept maps’ (Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson 1996 pg 571). The use of concept mapping to research students’ recognition of interrelationships between concepts in a biological context (Lin and Hu 2003) suggests that concept mapping has potential as a research tool for investigating interrelationships between concepts in the Earth System. One of the advantages of using a concept mapping technique to investigate students’ systems thinking is that making and explaining links between concepts is a key component of the activity. This means that asking the students to draw a concept map encourages them to demonstrate the types of concepts they link together and thus, potentially, allows insight into the nature of their systems thinking. The concept maps produced in this study were analysed using three techniques with the aim of developing a combined qualitative and quantitative system of analysis which would allow the extent to which students’ view the earth as a system to be accessed – in other words, to find out which aspects of their perspective of the earth were integrated. The development of each of these techniques is discussed below.

Analysis by map shape

School 1: Year 4/5, urban primary.Students were shown how to draw a concept map using the example of ‘School’. The word ‘concept’ was explained to the students as ‘a word that brings a picture into your mind that is like other people’s pictures when they hear the same word, for example ‘dog’ or ‘flower’.’ Most of the links made in the example map paired concepts to produce propositions, with few concepts linked more than once. Children were then given a set of ten concepts on cards (tree, human being, animal, cloud, rain, mountain, rock, river, sea and soil) chosen by the researcher to represent a range of aspects of the earth system in terms that young children would understand. Students were asked to decide which ones they thought related to ‘the Earth’, lay the concepts out and stick them down, then link them up using lines and linking words.


The shapes of the concept maps produced by the students were categorised as ‘chains’, ‘networks’, ‘spokes’, ‘pairs’ and ‘combinations’. Qualitative analysis of concept maps using shape as an indicator of cognitive development has been developed in research by Hay and Kinchin (Kinchin, Adams et al. 2000; Hay and Kinchin 2006). In their work, concept maps are categorised into ‘chain’, ‘spoke’ and ‘network’ typologies, reflecting differences in both understanding of the subject matter and the way in which the student organises that subject matter in their minds. The ‘pairs’ category was added here for maps where the students simply produced isolated pairs, and the ‘combination’ category is for those maps where the students use more than one shape. Simple examples of each category of map shape are shown in figure 2.

Figure 1: Types of concept map shapes.

Of the 21 maps, 11 are made up solely of 5 isolated pairs; 6 of the maps include one or more isolated chains; 5 of the maps include a spoke structure, 1 map is classed as a network (with more than 3 network links), but 5 of the maps include a form of simple network, where at least one ‘cyclical’ structure is present. 72.7% of the paired maps were produced by girls whereas boys produced 100% of the spoke and network maps and 60% of the chains (Table 2); the boys produced maps with a greater variety of shapes (figure 3). It was not possible to run statistical tests such as Chi-square since there are insufficient numbers; identified differences must therefore be treated with caution, although they do point to interesting possibilities for future work.

There are a number of possible reasons for the predominance of paired concept maps in this group, particularly amongst the girls. In the example given at the start of the session, the concepts about school were linked in pairs and so students may have felt that this was the ‘correct’ way to work on the task despite verbal instructions that any number of links from each concept was fine. Also, the influence of peer relationships when working on the task may have been a factor; although the pairs appeared in

A ‘Pair’ type map made up of concepts only linked to one other.

A ‘Chain’ type map made up of concepts linked in a single line.

A ‘Spoke’ type map made up of concepts linked to a single central concept.

A ‘Net’ type map where at least 3 of the links form a network.


tables in all corners of the room it was most common where groups of girls sat together. Repeating this activity with other Year 4/5 students using a different example and introduction will be necessary in a later phase of the research.

Map Shape

TotalSpoke Chain Network PairsCombination

Gender Male Count 2 3 1 3 1 10% within Gender 20.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 100.0%% within Map Shape 100.0% 60.0% 100.0% 27.3% 50.0% 47.6%

% of Total 9.5% 14.3% 4.8% 14.3% 4.8% 47.6%Female Count 0 2 0 8 1 11

% within Gender .0% 18.2% .0% 72.7% 9.1% 100.0%% within Map Shape .0% 40.0% .0% 72.7% 50.0% 52.4%

% of Total .0% 9.5% .0% 38.1% 4.8% 52.4%Total Count 2 5 1 11 2 21

% of Total 9.5% 23.8% 4.8% 52.4% 9.5% 100.0%

Table 2: Percentages of each map shape by gender for School 1.

FemaleMale

Gender

8

6

4

2

0

Cou

nt

Bar Chart

CombinationPairsNetworkChainSpoke

Map Shape

Figure 2: Number of maps of each type by Gender, School 1.

School 2: Year 9 class, rural mixed comprehensive.

The concept mapping method was explained in this school in a similar way to that described in School 1 but the example used was more detailed and clearly included more than one link between concepts. Students were asked to produce a concept map of their ‘health and fitness’ topic and some volunteers’ maps were discussed to show that people structured their ideas in different ways and that all the different ways were acceptable, including both hierarchical and non-hierarchical maps. In a second lesson, students were presented with a brief slide-show of pictures of the Earth to stimulate interest in the activity. It was explained that these images represented the researcher’s personal view of the Earth, and that their ideas would be probably different. The students were then asked to produce a concept map for the Earth, create a drawing to show ‘what happens on the Planet Earth’ and complete a questionnaire. In a third lesson, two groups of three volunteer students were interviewed.


This time, the students were not given a set of concepts to use but were allowed to choose their own concepts to represent their ideas. It was felt that greater freedom to express their thoughts would preserve authenticity in the representations of their thinking and would not constrain their ideas to the researcher’s preconceptions of the earth system following Vosniadou and Brewer (1992). However, analysis of the maps was particularly challenging when the task was unconstrained since, to some extent, focus on the essence of the research question (Earth Systems) was lost. Also, despite the students being asked to work individually to represent their own ideas, there are clear similarities in some of the maps produced.

Map shape shows one of the most striking differences between the set of maps produced by the students in schools 1 and 2. None of the maps from this class showed isolated pairs and there were few chains. The maps are more complex in shape, probably as a result of the increase in the number of concepts included, and many more show combinations of spokes, chains and networks than the maps in school 1. To categorise these map shapes, the same four types of shapes were used, with the addition of the ‘branched spoke’ category to indicate maps where two or more smaller spokes were joined to a central concept. There are some differences in shape according to gender (see table 3 and figure 4), but again, statistical analysis of the data was inappropriate due to limitations in sample size.

Gender * Map Shape Crosstabulation

4 1 0 0 2 757.1% 14.3% .0% .0% 28.6% 100.0%57.1% 100.0% .0% .0% 66.7% 43.8%25.0% 6.3% .0% .0% 12.5% 43.8%

3 0 3 2 1 933.3% .0% 33.3% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0%42.9% .0% 100.0% 100.0% 33.3% 56.3%18.8% .0% 18.8% 12.5% 6.3% 56.3%

7 1 3 2 3 1643.8% 6.3% 18.8% 12.5% 18.8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%43.8% 6.3% 18.8% 12.5% 18.8% 100.0%

Count% within Gender% within Map Shape% of TotalCount% within Gender% within Map Shape% of TotalCount% within Gender% within Map Shape% of Total

Male

Female

Gender

Total

Spoke Chain Network CombinationBranched

Spoke

Map Shape

Total

Table 3: Percentages of map shape by gender.

FemaleMale

Gender

4

3

2

1

0

Cou

nt

School=School 2

Branched SpokeCombinationNetworkChainSpokeMap Shape

Figure 4: Count of map shape by gender, School 2.


School 3: Year 9 class, Boys’ Grammar SchoolThe final phase of the pilot study was conducted in a boys’ grammar school. One lesson was available and it was decided to focus on refining the concept mapping technique, informed by the analysis of the previous trial. It was felt that it would be helpful to give the students some initial concepts to use in order to orient the concept mapping activity more closely to the research question so that valid comparisons could be made between the maps drawn in the third phase. Rather than give the students concepts that purely reflected the researcher’s ideas (as in school 1), the concepts were developed through analysis of the maps from the previous trial. Coding of the concept maps (see p. 15) produced the following broad categories:

□ Environment□ People□ Human Activity□ Science and Technology□ Animals□ Habitats/Plants□ Rocks□ Ice□ Resources□ Weather/Atmosphere□ Space□ Time□ Death□ Environmental Change□ Energy□ Emotions□ Extreme events

Eight concepts were taken from these categories (derived from cycle 2), deliberately chosen to reflect the earth system and therefore orient the activity to the research question. The eight concepts were rocks, plants, water, ice, people, animals, energy and atmosphere. To address the concern that these did not reflect all of the common themes arising from the students maps in School 2, it was decided to give the students the opportunity to add up to five more concepts. A drawing activity was also included to give greater freedom of expression to the students and to see if these Year 9 students produced similar drawings to those in School 2.

These maps are dominated by the network shape, although many of the maps also include a central spoke (figure 5, table 4 and figure 6 summarise the map shape data.) The shape of these maps suggests that a different categorisation of shape may be more appropriate for this task structure, since the majority of maps include enough network links (>3) to be classed as a network but this does not differentiate sufficiently between the shapes (e.g. T13 in figure 6 has a clear spoke element to its structure, whereas T3 does not). A useful characterisation would separate networks with a spoke element from those without, since the spokes appear to imply a hierarchy of the concepts the students perceive as central or key. Where a spoke element is included, common choices for the centre of the spoke were ‘people’ and ‘water’.


3 11 1 1520.0% 73.3% 6.7% 100.0%

3 11 1 1520.0% 73.3% 6.7% 100.0%

Count% of TotalCount% of Total

MaleGender

Total

SchoolSchool 3

Spoke Network Combination

Map Shape

Total

Table 4: Percentage of map shapes, School 3

Male

Gender

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Coun

t

School 3

CombinationNetworkSpoke

Map Shape

Figure 5: Count of map shapes, School 3

The results of this final cycle indicate that although the shape of the map produced is highly dependent on the task set, subtle differences in structure are apparent even within a task directed towards the earth system, which suggests that this method of analysing the concept maps may be useful in the main study.

Figure 6: Map shape sketches, School 3.


Analysis by Subsystem Links

School 1The principle aim of using concept mapping in this piece of research was to answer the question, ‘what are pupils’ mental models of the Earth System’ (RQ1). In effect, the aim was to investigate the extent to which students viewed the Earth as a whole system, and what links they made between different aspects of the system. In analysing the maps, the researcher used a perspective of the earth system in common use amongst geoscientists (see table 1). The initial analysis of the concept maps therefore looked for links between subsystems and links within subsystems to investigate which type of link the students were more likely to generate. The concepts used in School 1 with the subsystems in which they were placed are shown in table 5. Concept SubsystemRock GeosphereTree BiosphereHuman Being BiosphereSoil GeosphereRiver HydrosphereCloud AtmosphereRain Atmosphere and HydrosphereSea HydrosphereMountain GeosphereAnimal BiosphereTable 5: Concepts used in School 2 categorised into subsystems.

It was found here that the students tended to have the same or more links between systems than links within systems (see Figure 7; table 6)

Figure 7: Graph showing the relationship between links within and between subsystems, School

1.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Number of within subsystem links

Num

ber o

f bet

wee

n su

bsys

tem

link

s

Cycle 1

y=x

(10)


Map

Num

ber

Num

ber o

f with

in sy

stem

link

s

Num

ber o

f bet

wee

n sy

stem

link

s

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Bio

sphe

re

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Hyd

rosp

here

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Atm

osph

ere

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Geo

sphe

re

Tota

l num

ber o

f lin

ks

W1 0 9 0 0 0 0 9W2 2 8 0 2 0 0 10W3 4 5 0 2 1 1 9W4 3 8 0 1 1 1 11W5 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W6 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W7 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W8 5 7 0 3 1 1 12W9 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W10 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W11 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W12 5 5 0 3 1 1 10W13 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W14 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W15 4 4 1 2 0 1 8W16 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W17 6 9 1 2 1 2 15W18 3 5 0 2 0 1 8W19 2 10 0 0 1 1 12W20 3 9 1 0 1 1 12W21 3 3 0 1 1 1 6W22 3 3 0 1 1 1 6

Table 6. Number of links in maps from School 1.

School 2For the School 2 maps, qualitative analysis of the maps was undertaken using a colour coding system to give an overview of the sub-systems included on the students’ maps and an idea of where the links within and between systems were made. The subsystem ‘anthroposphere’ was introduced, since so many of the students’ concepts related to people. Figure 8 shows an example of this coding. This initial overview indicated that the students’ maps tended to focus on people and their relationship with the earth and environment.


Figure 8: Example of concept map, School 2.

A tally was made of all of the concepts used (149) which were sorted to identify the most common (see Table 7). This clearly demonstrates the students’ concerns over people and their relationships with each other and with the environment. It was noted that although many of the concepts did not appear more than once or twice, the students were using different words to refer to similar ideas or concepts. It was therefore decided to code the words used by the students into categories to produce a representation of their ideas about the Earth. Two colleagues who do not have a background in Earth Science were also asked to code the students’ words in order to improve reliability; their categories were very similar suggesting that the categories were a reasonable representative summary of the students’ maps. The categories produced were used to identify concepts used in School 3 (see p. 10).

Words on maps Number of times word appearsPeople 14Animals 11Pollution 7Volcanoes 7War 7Deaths 6Deserts 6Earthquakes 6Global Warming 6Hurricanes 6Jobs 6Money 6Poverty 6

Table 3: Concepts appearing 6 or more times, School 2.

Coding Key:Red = AnthroposphereBlue = HydrosphereGreen = BiosphereGrey = GeosphereBrown = AtmosphereOrange = Space


A count of the links within and between subsystems for the maps in school 2 produced the opposite pattern to those in school 1, with the majority of maps showing more links being made within a subsystem than between subsystems (figure 9). This is a particularly interesting reflection of a possible difference when students are given concepts to use rather than choosing their own. The graph shows a small number of links for some maps because some students tended to draw their maps using the Earth as a central concept. It seems that these students were influenced by the spider diagrams they are accustomed to drawing in school. The number of links between words within a subsystem and the whole system concept of the Earth were also counted (table 8), showing that this type of link was common in school 2 whereas it did not appear in school 1.

Map

Num

ber

Num

ber o

f with

in s

yste

m li

nks

Num

ber o

f bet

wee

n sy

stem

link

s

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Ant

hrop

osph

ere

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Bio

sphe

re

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Hyd

rosp

here

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Atm

osph

ere

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Geo

sphe

re

who

le s

yste

m -

sub-

syst

em li

nks

(mea

ns li

nks

to 'e

arth

' or '

envi

ronm

ent')

C1 27 11 18 7 0 0 2 5C2 10 6 7 1 0 2 0 6C3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 19C4 16 10 9 5 2 0 0 6C5 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 6C6 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 5C7 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 6C8 14 7 9 3 0 2 0 7C9 19 6 12 4 0 1 2 1C10 19 6 10 6 0 1 2 2C11 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 9C12 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 11C13 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 10C14 12 8 3 4 0 0 5 20C15 9 3 3 6 0 0 0 3C16 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 1

Table 4: Count of links categorised by subsystem for School 2.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20


Num

ber o

f bet

wee

n su

bsys

tem

link

s

Cycle 2y=x

Figure 3: Ratio of subsystem links, School 2

School 3An advantage of using a task structure in which the students are given a set of concepts, as in School 3, is that it allows comparison of the overall count of the number of links made (while remembering that the students had the opportunity to add concepts; four students added one concept, one added three, two added four and one added six concepts). Table 9 shows the total count of the links the students made, the links within and between systems and the shape of the map. In this school, the students made many more links between sub-systems than they did within sub-systems (figure 10), reflecting the concepts they were given. It was anticipated that there might be a relationship between the map shape and the number of links made, although this was not assessed statistically, it does not appear to be the case.


Map

Num

ber

Num

ber o

f with

in s

yste

m li

nks

Num

ber o

f bet

wee

n sy

stem

link

s

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Ant

hrop

osph

ere

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Bio

sphe

re

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Hyd

rosp

here

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Atm

osph

ere

Num

ber o

f lin

ks w

ithin

Geo

sphe

re

who

le s

yste

m -

sub-

syst

em li

nks

(mea

ns li

nks

to 'e

arth

' or '

envi

ronm

ent')

Type

of m

ap s

hape

T1 1 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 NetworkT2 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 NetworkT3 1 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 Network

T4 5 18 3 1 0 1 0 0Spoked network

T5 4 16 1 1 0 2 0 0 Linked spokesT6 2 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 NetworkT7 3 12 1 1 0 1 0 0 NetworkT8 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 Spoke

T9 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 0

Combination (spoke plus pair)

T10 1 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 SpokeT11 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 NetworkT12 4 15 0 1 0 2 1 0 Network


T14 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 Network


Table 9: Count of subsystem links, School 3.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20


Num

ber o

f bet

wee

n su

bsys

tem

link

s

Cycle 3

y=x

Figure 10: Subsystem links, School 3.

Analysis by Static vs Dynamic Proposition

Alongside consideration of the shapes of the concept maps as a possible representation of systems thinking, the propositions created by the linked concepts may provide insight into the students’ perceptions of the earth as a system. Derbentseva, Safayeni et al. (2007) conducted an experimental study to analyse the level of ‘dynamic thinking’ in the maps produced by the students. One of the measures of dynamic thinking used in this study was in the type of propositions the students used. Propositions were considered dynamic if change in one concept necessarily produced change in the linked concept. Propositions that were descriptive or organisational were labelled ‘static’.

School 1Propositions were coded into the types shown in table 10. In this analysis, the categories of ‘utility’ and ‘creating’ were classed as dynamic since changing one concept would be likely to affect the other, however, a broader definition of ‘affect’ has been used than that used by Derbentseva since the propositions were coded as dynamic if there could be a potential effect and not that there definitely would be. For School 1, it seems that the propositions created by the students were evenly split between static and dynamic links (ratio static:dynamic ~ 0.94:1). The analysis of static and dynamic propositions is particularly interesting in the context of systems thinking, since one of the characteristics of a systems approach is a focus on interrelationships and the way that subsystems affect each other. Dynamic propositions are therefore seen as a closer reflection of ‘systems thinking’ than static propositions.


Types of proposition Count Total

Static

In the same category as 28

58Identical to 7Location/relation in space 21Emotional 2

DynamicCreating or making 32

62Utility 30

Table 10: Count of Dynamic and Static Propositions, School 1.

School 2The propositions were categorised using the same groups as for school 1, and the static and dynamic types of propositions were counted (Table 11). Although no propositions were counted as ‘emotional’ because the nature of the proposition was not describing an emotion (e.g. people like animals), the language of many of the concepts could be viewed as emotive, where the students are describing poverty, death, destruction or war but the links were classed as ‘location’ (‘poverty is on the earth’) or ‘creating’ (‘greedy people cause poverty’). The ratio of static to dynamic propositions for school 2 is 1.4:1, compared with 0.94:1 for school 1. Again, statistical analysis is not possible for the size of sample and so the significance of the difference cannot be calculated.


Static




82Utility 56

Table 11: Types of proposition for School 2.

School 3In categorising the propositions created by the students in school three, an additional category was needed for physical processes such as melting, freezing and sinking. Table 12 shows the types of proposition, which in this case are dominated by the dynamic type, in contrast to the students of the same age in school 2. This suggests that the task set-up influenced the types of proposition.


Static




186Utility 126In the same category as 20

Table 12: Proposition types, School 3.

Implications

A number of interesting questions are raised by the differences in the concept maps produced by the different ages of students experiencing different task prompts, and it


is a significant limitation of the pilot study that due to the nature of the convenience sample, only one Year 4/5 class was included. As a developing indicator of Earth Systems thinking, it was anticipated that systems thinking would be reflected in more network-type map shapes, a higher proportion of dynamic propositions and a higher ratio of links made between than within systems. In the first two schools, the use of these measures of systems thinking was not conclusive, since the map shape indicator appeared to suggest more systems thinking among the older children whereas the static and dynamic propositions and within and between-system links suggested less systems thinking. However, these differences are more likely to be caused by the way the activity was set-up and cannot be interpreted as an age or developmental difference. The appearance of some gender differences in these schools raises some questions for further work.

In terms of developing concept mapping as an indicator of Earth Systems thinking, the implication arising from the analysis thus far is that the students’ thinking revealed by the process is likely to be highly dependent on the structure of the task they are given. An advantage of the open-ended task is that it allows the students more freedom to surface their own concerns about the earth and the environment and the students’ voices come through more strongly. However, this does not orient the task towards a consideration of the relationships between aspects of the system and is therefore of less use as a measure of students’ systems thinking. However, to achieve a more authentic view of the students’ own ideas, a structured task was developed to reflect the concerns and ideas that the open-ended school 2 maps revealed.

The concept maps produced in the final phase of the pilot study demonstrate how the use of the three indicators (map shape, subsystem links and proposition type) appear to reveal a more integrated perception of the earth than the maps produced by the students in the earlier phases, with a greater inclusion of physical processes and scientific ideas than in the previous phases of the study. The comparative analysis of the subsystem links clearly shows the influence of the task structure, and it remains questionable if this type of analysis is of use in distinguishing different perceptions of the earth system between students who have taken part in the same task. This element of the method therefore requires further trial and analysis, and it is expected that the inclusion of an element of free choice may be particularly important here.

Although more of the propositions were classed as dynamic in school 3, they tended to be limited to one-word direct relationships (such as plants use energy) and due to the broad nature of the concepts given, only a broad overview was gleaned. Consideration of how to investigate the nature of the relationships created by the students in more depth will need to be addressed in future work.

Overview of students’ perceptions

One of the aims of the pilot study was to assess the viability of using complementary mixed methods to access students’ perceptions. This also appears promising, with a combination of concept maps and drawings producing a balance between focussing the research on the earth system on the one hand and allowing freedom of expression for the students’ on the other. Although the detail of the interviews, drawings and questionnaires are not discussed in this paper, a brief overview follows:


The outcome of the questionnaire confirms the findings discussed from the ROSE project regarding students’ attitudes to the environment (Jenkins and Pell 2006). The questionnaire data also resonates with the findings from both concept mapping and drawings, showing that although Earth Systems thinking is not clearly demonstrated, the students’ thinking is dominated by concern over humanity’s relationship with the earth and environment. Examples of the students’ drawings are shown in figures 11, 12 and 13; Table 13 shows the types of images the students’ produced.

Images of life and the natural world

Images of harm or death Images of neutral human activity Related to war Related to pollution

Daffodil (1)Animal (1)Baby (1)Flower (1)Mother nature (1)Sheep (1)Volcano (1)Tree (1)Smiling person (1)Rain (2)Mountains (1)

Army (1)Atomic bomb (3)Blood (1)Building on fire (1)Coffin (2)Dead bodies (5)Dead tree (1)Flags (2)Gravestone (1)Gun (7)Humans throwing spears (1)Weapon launcher (1)Person on fire (1)Ruined building (2)Tank (2)Twin Towers (2)

Before/after image showing pollution (1)Factory (5)Cars (1)Landfill site (1)Oil rig (1)People cutting down trees (1)Chimneys with radiation symbol (2)Smoking chimneys (1)Oil tanker (1)Buried skull (1)Truck (1)

Roads (2)Rugby match (1)Zoo (2)

Table 13: Categorisation of images from School 2 pictures.

Figure 11: Student drawing, School 2.


Figure 12: Student drawing, School 2.

Figure 13: Example drawing, School 3.


Box 1 shows an extract taken from a group interview with three female students from School 2 and demonstrates the possible influence of the media on the students’ perceptions.

Box 1: Interview extract, School 2.

Implications for further work

The pilot study has not enabled conclusions to be drawn about the students’ mental models of the earth system; rather it has focussed on the development of research methods and the evolution of the research design. Indeed, the main conclusion to be drawn is that accessing the way in which students integrate their understanding of the earth system is a difficult problem, as results are highly dependent on the way in which the research tasks are framed for the students. The data collected appears to show that students perceive humanity as a central component of the earth system and that humanity has a powerful and dominating effect on and relationship with the earth. However, as a result of the study and continued access to the literature, both the research methods and the research questions need to be altered and refined.

Leach and Scott (2003) argue that both individual and sociocultural perspectives on constructivism provide useful insight into learning in science, and Duit and Treagust note that ‘epistemological views merging radical and social-constructivist approaches appear to be more promising than monistic views proposed by one or the other side. There have been developments during the past few years towards such inclusive epistemological views that seem to provide…powerful frames for understanding learning processes as they happen in real learning situations…’(Duit and Treagust 2003, p. 675). Key limitations in the research design in the pilot study are that peer influence is not included and that it is difficult to access students’ individual mental models when working in a classroom environment. In each of the phases, the influence of the students’ ideas on each others concept maps and drawings is clear: in all three phases there are similar maps produced by students who were sitting close, and in the second study the images of war appeared to spread around the classroom as a result of one student’s question. The effect of the media on the students’ perceptions was also raised in the interviews. It is therefore felt that the focus on the individual rather than the social construction of knowledge is a particular problem for the research, and therefore the design of the main study will need to incorporate group activities and formalise the inclusion of social influences and group effects in the classrooms into the study, perhaps by video taping the students’ working on concept mapping and drawing activities in groups rather than individually.

‘C: Well at school you actually learn what is actually happening all like, global warming. Like, they have it on the news but its almost one-sided on the news, like really biased, but at school they actually tell you what is happening, they give you all the facts and statistics. So you become more aware of it than you would be if you just heard it on the news or from parents, cos you get taught the inside and out of it.J: I dunno, I think at school, because we’re like… in English they like, teach you about poems and then like, global warming somehow doesn’t seem as important, it just seems like everything else. Whereas if you hear it on the news it sort of reinforces it. And when you hear news readers worrying about it you worry about it more. E: It’s like, you know its happening in real life, rather than just hearing about it and not taking much notice of it. When you actually see it on the TV in front of you, you know that’s actually happening.’


The focus further work has therefore shifted from concentrating on individual constructivism to a broader conception of the construction of knowledge incorporating the inclusive epistemological view discussed by Duit and Treagust (2003). Within this framework, students’ earth system thinking is understood as an example of conceptual integration and it is anticipated that the study will therefore form an initial contribution to the development of theory about how students construct integrated knowledge about science, in science classrooms. A number of questions are raised:

□ Can common factors in students’ integration of their conceptual understanding of the earth system be identified?

□ What are the influences on students’ development of an integrated conceptual understanding of the earth system?

□ How can conceptual integration (in terms of the earth system) be investigated?

Ethics

The research was conducted following the University ethical approval procedures. All three schools were given the chance to take a copy of the researchers’ CRB certification. Where research did not follow usual class activities, parental permission was sought. It was made clear that students’ anonymity would be maintained. Where activities were viewed as a learning activity by the class teacher, the students all needed to take part in the activities. However, handing the outcomes of the activities to the researcher at the end of the lessons was voluntary.

References

Assaraf, O. and N. Orion (2005). "Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42(5): 518-560.

Chang, C.-Y. (2005). "Taiwanese science and life technology curriculum standards and earth systems education." International Journal of Science Education 27(5): 625-638.

Derbentseva, N., F. Safayeni, et al. (2007). "Concept Maps: Experiments on Dynamic Thinking." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(3): 448-465.

DfES (2007). Sustainable Schools for pupils, communities and the environment: An Action Plan for the DfES, DfES.

Dove, J. E. (1998). "Students' alternative conceptions in Earth Science: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. ." Research Papers in Education 13(2): 183-201.

Driver, R., Leach, J. , Scott, P. , Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). "Young people's understanding of science concepts: Implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning." Studies in Science Education 24: 75-100.

Duit, R. and D. F. Treagust (2003). "Conceptual Change: A Powerful Framework for Improving Science Teaching and Learning." International Journal of Science Education 25(6): 671-688.

Greca, I. M. and M. A. Moreira (2000). "Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling." International Journal of Science Education 22(1): 1-11.

Hay, D. B. and I. M. Kinchin (2006). "Using Concept Maps to Reveal Conceptual Typologies." Education & Training 48(2).


Hyongyong, L. (2002). Systems Theory and the Earth Systems Approach in Science Education. ERIC Digest, ERIC.

Jenkins, E. (2006). "School science and citizenship: whose science and whose citizenship?" Curriculum Journal 17(3): 197-221.

Jenkins, E. and A. Pell (2006) "The Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) in England: a summary of findings." International Relevance of Science Education Project Volume, 80 DOI:

Jenkins, E. W. and R. G. Pell (2006). ""Me and the Environmental Challenges": A survey of English secondary school students' attitudes towards the environment." International Journal of Science Education 28(7): 765-780.

Johnson, D. R. (2006). "Earth System Science: A Model for Teaching Science as State, Process and Understanding?" Journal of Geoscience Education 54(3): 202-207.

Kinchin, I. M., A. Adams, et al. (2000). "How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development." Educational Research 42(1): 43-57.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Chicago University Press.

Leach, J. and P. Scott (2003). "Individual and Sociocultural Views of Learning in Science Education." Science and Education 12: 91-113.

Lin, C.-Y. and R. Hu (2003). "Students' understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis and respiration." International Journal of Science Education 25(12): 1529-1544.

Lucken, M., S. Hlawatsch, et al. (2006). Promoting system competency with system Earth education - Evaluation results of the German project 'Forschungdialog: System Erde'. GeoSciEd V, Bayreuth, Germany.

Mayer, V. J. (1995). "Using the Earth System for Integrating the Science Curriculum." Science Education 79(4): 375-391.

Mayer, V. J., Ed. (2002). Global Science Literacy. Dordrecht, Kluwer.Millar, R. and J. Osborne (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future.

London, King's College London.Mintzes, J., J. Wandersee, et al., Eds. (2000). Assessing Science Understanding: A

Human Constructionist View. San Diego, CA, Academic Press.Nobes, G., A. E. Martin, et al. (2005). "The development of scientific knowledge of

the Earth." British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23: 47-64.Novak, J. D. and D. B. Gowin (1984). Learning How To Learn. Cambridge, New

York, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.QCA (2007). The New Secondary Curriculum: What has Changed and Why?, QCA.Raia, F. (2005). "Students' Understanding of Complex Dynamic Systems." Journal of

Geoscience Education 53(3): 297-308.Ruiz-Primo, M. A. and R. J. Shavelson (1996). "Problems and Issues in the Use of

Concept Maps in Science Assessment." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6): 569-600.

Schwaninger, M. (2006). "System Dynamics and the Evolution of the Systems Movement." Systems Research and Behavioural Science 23: 583-594.

Scott, D. (1996). Making Judgements about Educational Research. Understanding Educational Research. D. Scott and R. Usher. London, Routledge.

Shepardson, D. P., B. Wee, et al. (2007). "Students' Mental Models of the Environment: ." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(2): 327-348.


Solomon, J. (1987). "The pupils' view of electricity revisited: Social development or cognitive growth?" International Journal of Science Education 9(1): 13-22.

Taber, K. (2005). Conceptual Integration and science learners - do we expect too much? Seminar presented at the Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.

Taber, K. (2006). "Beyond Constructivism: the Progressive Research Programme into Learning Science." Studies in Science Education 42: 125-184.

Vosniadou, S. and W. F. Brewer (1992). "Mental Models of the Earth: A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood. ." Cognitive Psychology 24(4): 535-585.

Views of Planet Earth: Systems Thinking In Earth Science ... · Web viewWords on maps Number of...

Documents

Transcript of Views of Planet Earth: Systems Thinking In Earth Science ... · Web viewWords on maps Number of...