MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

1. Environmental Literacy Research Group LEARNING PROGRESSIONS TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACYCharles W. Anderson, Ajay Sharma, Lindsey Mohan, In-Young Cho, Hui Jin, Christopher D. Wilson, John Lockhart, Blakely TsurusakiRichard Duschl, Discussant MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

2. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, April 3-6, 2006 This research is supported in part by three grants from the National Science Foundation: Developing a research-based learning progression for the role of carbon in environmental systems (REC 0529636), the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science (ESI-0227557) and Long-term Ecological Research in Row-crop Agriculture (DEB 0423627. 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. CCMS

3. Environmental Literacy Research Group PARTNERS • Mark Wilson, Karen Draney, University of California, Berkeley • Joe Krajcik. Phil Piety, University of Michigan • Brian Reiser, Northwestern University • Jo Ellen Roseman, AAAS Project 2061 • Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network • Alan Berkowitz, Baltimore Ecosystem Study • Ali Whitmer, Santa Barbara Coastal • John Moore, Shortgrass Steppe

4. Environmental Literacy Research Group ORDER OF PAPERS Introduction and overview: Charles W. Anderson Paper 1: Understanding of matter transformations in physical and chemical changes,By In-Young Cho and Charles W. Anderson Paper 2: Developing a Carbon Cycle Learning Progression for K-12,By Lindsey Mohan, Ajay Sharma, In-Young Cho, Hui Jin, and Charles W. Anderson Paper 3: Diversity and Evolution in Environmental Systems,By Chris Wilson, John Lockhart, and Charles W. Anderson Paper 4: Connecting Personal Actions to Environmental Systems,By Blakely K. Tsurusaki and Charles W. Anderson Common Themes and Implications: Charles W. Anderson Discussion: Richard Duschl, Rutgers University Website: http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/index.htm

5. Environmental Literacy Research Group INTRODUCTION and OVERVIEWCharles W. Anderson MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

6. Environmental Literacy Research Group CONVERGING TRENDS • Science education policy: Critiques of standards • Science: Interdisciplinary Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems • Citizenship: Increasing environmental responsibility • Science education research: Learning Progressions as an Approach to Research Synthesis

7. Environmental Literacy Research Group CRITIQUES OF STANDARDS • Traditionalist critique (e.g., Fordham Foundation, California standards) • Too much philosophy, psychology, inquiry • Not enough rigorous science content • Science education critique (e.g., us) • Need to consider changing needs for citizens’ knowledge • Too many benchmarks: Need to reduce and reorganize around Big Ideas • Need to consider advances in educational research (including learning progressions)

8. Environmental Literacy Research Group SCIENCE: Interdisciplinary Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems • Shift from individual disciplines (ecology, geology, atmospheric science, meteorology) to interdisciplinary fields (environmental science, earth systems science) • Shift from focus on natural systems to coupled human and natural systems • Shift from retrospective (reconstructing the past) to prospective (projecting the future)

9. Environmental Literacy Research Group RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LITERACY • The world is changing as human impacts on the environment increase • Citizens need to consider environmental consequences or sustainability in concert with other democratic values: freedom, opportunity, justice • Actions and decisions in multiple roles that all citizens play: learners, consumers, voters, workers, volunteers, and advocates • Environmental science literacy is the ability to • Enact personal agency with respect to environmental issues • Understand and evaluate arguments among experts • Reconcile actions or policies with values

10. Environmental Literacy Research Group PRACTICES for ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LITERACY 1. Inquiry: Learning from experience (not addressed in these papers) • Practical and scientific inquiry • Developing arguments from evidence 2 and 3. Scientific accounts and applications: Learning from authorities • Applying fundamental principles to processes in systems • Using scientific models and patterns to explain and predict 4. Using scientific reasoning in responsible citizenship: Reconciling experience, authority, and values • Enacting personal agency on environmental issues • Reconciling actions or policies with values • Understanding and evaluating arguments among experts

11. Applying fundamental principles… Structure of systems: nanoscopic, microscopic, macroscopic, large scale Constraints on processes: tracing matter, energy, information Change over time: evolution, multiple causes, feedback loops …to processes in coupled human and natural systems Earth systems: Geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere Living systems: Producers, consumers, decomposers Engineered systems: Food, water, energy, transportation, housing ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ACCOUNTS and APPLICATIONS

12. Environmental Literacy Research Group RESEARCH GOALS LEARNING PROGRESSIONS as an APPROACH to RESEARCH SYNTHESIS • Synthesizing research around key practices and themes or Big Ideas • Using short-term studies to investigate long-term learning • Connecting research, policy, and practice

13. A research-based learning progression for environmental literacy topics. This learning progression will include: A review of research on student learning relevant to that topic Results of our research on student learning, including what we have learned from pretests and posttests A suggested successional description of students’ learning: a series of steps by which elementary, middle, and high school students can work toward mastery of the learning goals for high school graduates. Assessment tests for K-12 students Environmental Literacy Research Group RESEARCH PRODUCTS

14. Data sources Volunteer teachers in working groups Tests administered to upper elementary, middle, and high school students (available on website) Data analysis Developing rubrics for open-response questions Searching for patterns and common themes within and across tests Patterns in accounts of environmental systems (Practices 2 and 3) Patterns in reconciling experience, authority, and values (Practice 4) Looking for developmental trends Environmental Literacy Research Group METHODS

15. Environmental Literacy Research Group STUDENTS’ IDEAS OF MATTER TRANSFORMATION IN PHYSICAL AND CHEMICICAL CHANGES: ECOLOGICAL THINKING In-Young Cho and Charles W. Anderson MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

16. Data Sources 40 students in grade 10 - general and AP chemistry 40 students in grade 10 - International Baccalaureate program “Physical and Chemical Change” assessment of 12 written questionnaires development of rubric and working paper Data Analysis Matter transformations in physical & chemical changes Concept relations in students’ ecological thinking of scientific principles of environmental systems Phenomenological categories for concept relations Construction of issues in students’ ecological thinking about matter transformations in environmental systems Environmental Literacy Research Group DATA and ANALYSIS

17. Applying fundamental principles… Structure of systems: Atomic-molecular and macroscopic Constraints on processes: -Tracing matter: mass, substances, elements, molecules, atoms -Tracing energy …to processes in coupled human and natural systems Sublimating iodine Burning wood Losing weight PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS

18. Environmental Literacy Research Group Iodine Solid SUBLIMATING IODINE 1. A 1-gram sample of solid iodine is placed in a tube and the tube is sealed after all of the air is removed. The tube and the solid iodine together weigh 27 grams. The tube is then heated until all of the iodine evaporates and the tube is filled with iodine gas. Will the weight after heating be: a. less than 26 grams. b. 26 grams. c. between 26 and 27 grams. d. 27 grams. e. more than 27 grams. 2. What is the reason for your answer to question 1?

19. Environmental Literacy Research Group CHANGE OF STATE • “Because going from a solid to a gas, it weighs less” • “Because of the law of conservation of mass”

20. Environmental Literacy Research Group PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS • In physical change, more than half of the students didn’t conserve the mass of gas. • Even in a closed system, gas is thought to weigh less than a solid.

21. True or false? When a piece of wood burns, some of the matter is destroyed. What is the reason for your answer? True: 17.5% False: 82.5% “Isn’t there a law that says matter is neither lost nor created? So I’m thinking it’s just transfer into gas and ash” (unspecified gas) “it is changed to other states/forms such as ash and smoke” (ashes and smoke) “when you’re burning, you’re chemically destroying. So some matter must be destroyed” (destroys matter) “the wood isn’t changing chemically, just physically” (phase change) Environmental Literacy Research Group BURING WOOD

22. Environmental Literacy Research Group COMBUSTION

23. Environmental Literacy Research Group PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS • When a gas is involved in a chemical change as a reactant/product in open systems, added/emitted mass of gas is ignored • In open systems, students often failed to trace the pathway of gases and failed to give them chemical identities • Asserting the law of conservation of mass without accompanying explanation • Chemical change is not considered as a process of atomic rearrangement but as a simple change of matter form • Atomic-molecular reasoning is limited and heavily context-dependent (e.g. compare to losing weight question)

24. Environmental Literacy Research Group LOSING WEIGHT A person on a diet lost 20 pounds. Some of his fat is gone. What happened to the mass of the fat? • “It was used for energy” (conversion to energy) • “It was transferred elsewhere and released from the body, sweat, etc.” (water and waste materials) • “It was burned away, it went away” (simple subtraction) • “The mass of the fat stayed the same” (conservation of mass) • “The fat cells in the person’s body shrank” (other)

25. Environmental Literacy Research Group CELLULAR RESPIRATION

26. Environmental Literacy Research Group PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS • The gas products in the chemical reactions of cellular respiration are not traced; the conservation of mass is only stated technically. • The context of fat burning gives the idea of energy production, the process of chemical reactions of cellular respiration was not traced. • Students knew fat burning is a breaking down of fat, but didn’t trace it to a chemical process of oxidation into CO2 and H2O

27. About half of the students had no commitment to conservation of mass in changes involving gases The other half of the students showed a commitment to the principle, but were unable to apply it to more complex chemical changes They had problems with understanding systems: - difficulties in identifying reactants and products - matter-energy conversions - inability to use atomic-molecular models Environmental Literacy Research Group MATTER TRANSFORMATIONS in ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS

28. Environmental Literacy Research Group DEVELOPING A CARBON CYCLE LEARNING PROGRESSION FOR K-12 Lindsey Mohan, Ajay Sharma, In-Young Cho, Hui Jin, and Charles W. Anderson MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

29. Environmental Literacy Research Group DATA SOURCES and ANALYSIS Data Sources • 120 total assessments - 40 elementary school (3rd & 4th grade) - 40 middle school (6th & 8th grade) - 40 high school (biology classes) • Items focused on the role of carbon in: producers, consumers, decomposers, human-energy systems, physical & chemical change, and carbon pools & fluxes Data Analysis • Rubrics developed to capture patterns in responses - Reliability checks and revision of rubrics

30. Applying fundamental principles… Structure of systems: atomic-molecular (CO2 and organic materials), single-celled and multicellular organisms (producers, consumers, decomposers), ecosystems Constraints on processes: Tracing matter: inorganic to organic forms …to processes in coupled human and natural systems Amazon tree growth Decomposition of apple Food chain Preserving forests PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS

31. On March 10, 2004, National Public Radio reported that “forests in a remote part of the Amazon are suddenly growing like teenagers in a growth spurt.” Scientists have speculated that our actions may have caused this phenomenon. What do you think could be the scientific basis behind such a speculation?

32. Microscopic and Large Scale accounts 25% focused on microscopic scale (“maybe there are more minerals for the trees to grow”) 12.5% focused on large scale (“lack of pollution from business”) Tracing carbon across from inorganic to organic forms 0%-related to elevated level of CO2 in atmosphere (combustion to photosynthesis) Direct versus indirect influences from humans 38%-humans are directly influencing growth “Naturally, trees would not suddenly have grown an incredibly drastic amount in just a year…you must believe that man-made influences caused it. Possibilities are controlled burns, soil that has been removed or changed to stimulate crop rotation, or even particles in rainwater or chemical substances.” CONNECTING AMAZON GROWTH to FOSSIL FUELS

33. WHEN AN APPLE IS LEFT OUTSIDE FOR A LONG TIME, IT ROTS. WHAT CAUSES THE APPLE TO ROT? Students become increasingly more aware that decomposers are involved, but do not trace matter through the process.

34. EXPLAIN HOW THE FOLLOWING LIVING THINGS CONNECT WITH EACH OTHER: GRASS, COWS, HUMAN BEINGS, DECOMPOSING BACTERIA • Student Response: “the grass is eaten by the cow and becomes energy and the cow is eaten by humans and all these things die and are decomposed.”

35. EXPLAIN WHY IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE OUR FORESTS • Middle school students more often mention connection between humans and O2 from plants and less explanations including animals • Limited understanding of the role of plants in the ecological carbon cycle

36. Environmental Literacy Research Group KEY FINDINGS • Students primarily reason at macroscopic level; Reasoning at microscopic scale and large scale is more common in explanations from older students, but very limited. • Students do not trace matter from organic to inorganic forms (e.g., decomposition). • Students view living systems as connected by having things in common or being part of a food chain, but not by tracing matter and energy. • Students make environmental decisions based on needs of humans and animals.

37. Environmental Literacy Research Group DIVERSITY AND EVOLUTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMSChristopher D. Wilson, John Lockhart and Charles W. Anderson MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

38. Environmental Literacy Research Group DATA SOURCES • Two high school classes (n=30) • Biology and Zoology • One middle school class (n=30) • Two elementary classes (n=30)

39. Diversity in natural systems at different levels Natural systems change over time in response to environmental conditions. Human impact on the environment is increasingly directing the way systems change. Environmental Literacy Research Group EVOLUTION, DIVERSITY and ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY Sex and Mutation: Diversity Selection: Diversity

40. Applying fundamental principles… Structure of systems: Alleles, genes, traits, organisms, populations, species, communities and ecosystems Diversity at multiple levels Constraints on processes: Connections between systems Tracing information: individual life cycles, population structures Change over time: Modeling the mechanisms governing the connections Evolution as changes in population size and structure Human effects on biodiversity …to processes in coupled human and natural systems Structure of strawberry populations Structure of fish populations Evolutionary change in cheetahs Survival of elephant populations PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS

41. Environmental Literacy Research Group STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS String Instruments Wind Instruments Percussion Woodwind Brass Plucked Bowed Metallic Skinned Flutes Clarinets Harps Guitars Cymbals Bells Violins Cellos Trumpets Saxophones Drums Tambourines Starting with “All Living Things . . .”

42. Environmental Literacy Research Group Producers Consumers Decomposers STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS Musical Instruments Item

43. Environmental Literacy Research Group Producers Consumers Decomposers STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS Musical Instruments Item % of students

44. Environmental Literacy Research Group STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS Fish Item Structure of individuals within a population From Elementary: Fish are all Identical To Secondary: Significant Differences (but no mechanism) e.g. “It is a proven fact that no two organisms look exactly alike and act the same”

45. Environmental Literacy Research Group PROCESSES THAT CONNECT SYSTEMS Strawberry Item A.Why don’t the strawberries look identical?

46. Environmental Literacy Research Group PROCESSES THAT CONNECT SYSTEMS Strawberry Item A. Why don’t the strawberries look identical? % of students

47. Environmental Literacy Research Group PROCESSES THAT CONNECT SYSTEMS Strawberry Item B.Explaining the difference in diversity between wild and supermarket strawberries (connecting human and natural systems). • ~50% of students mentioned some sort of human influence. • Vague perceptions of what that influence was. • Lacking understanding of the mechanisms of how humans influence diversity. • Invisible connections between human and natural systems.

48. Environmental Literacy Research Group CHANGE OVER TIME Cheetah Item 20mph 60mph Model-Based Reasoning • Individuals in a population are not identical, but vary in many characteristics. • Survival is not random, certain traits provide an advantage. • Populations change over time as the frequency of advantageous alleles / traits increases.

49. Environmental Literacy Research Group % of students CHANGE OVER TIME Cheetah Item • No students used the rules of the model in constructing their explanation – instead they focused on narratives. • High School students saw the need for a mechanism, but because part of the model was invisible to them (genetic variation in populations), like Lamarck, they picked the wrong one.

50. Environmental Literacy Research Group CHANGE OVER TIME Elephant Item 2 populations of elephants. Elephants in Population A are all slightly different, Population B are all identical. • Which of the two populations do you think is most likely to survive if there was a severe drought? • Rules of the model: • Individuals in a population are not identical, but vary in many characteristics. • Survival is not random, certain traits provide an advantage. • Population level genetic variation is the raw material of natural selection.