ERIC EJ1132081: The Need to Introduce System Thinking in Teaching Climate Change

2017·0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

Anita Roychoudhury, Daniel P. Shepardson, Andrew Hirsch,
Devdutta Niyogi, Jignesh Mehta, and Sara Top
The Need to Introduce System Thinking
in Teaching Climate Change
Abstract and its inclusion in school curriculum secondary students’ understanding of
Research related to teaching climate sometimes becomes a subject of debate climate change. Students think pollution
change, system thinking, current reform (Hesteness et al., 2014). On the other and the ozone hole cause global warming;
in science education, and the research on hand, current reforms in science educa- some middle school students think that
reform-oriented assessment indicate that tion as described by A Framework for carbon dioxide causes ozone depletion
we need to explore student understanding K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) that in turn causes global warming (Rye
in greater detail instead of only testing and the Next Generation Science Stan- et al., 1997). Cordero and his colleagues
for an incremental gain in disciplinary dards (NGSS) (Achieve, 2013) recom- (2008) found similar ideas among un-
knowledge. Using open-ended items we mend that all students from middle dergraduate students. Other researchers
assessed details in student successes school onwards should understand the found that students believe that green-
and challenges in thinking about cli- causes, effects, and methods of mitigat- house gases constitute a layer or a roof
mate change and climate system. Twelve ing climate change. that bounces “heat” back to the earth
teachers of the 7th and 8th grades and 457 There is a large body of research on (Andersson & Wallin, 2000; Shepardson
students from four schools in a Mid- student misconceptions about climate et al., 2009; Osterlind, 2005). Students
western state participated in this study. change and related concepts (e.g., also think of global warming as a change
Statistical analysis of student responses Andersson & Wallin, 2000; McCuin in temperature and mostly ignore its
on the pre- and post-test showed a sig- et al., 2014; Osterlind, 2005; Rye et al., relationship to precipitation (Shepardson
nifi cant (p<.0001) gain in knowledge but 1997; Shepardson et al., 2009); however, et al., 2009; Kilinc, Stanisstreet, & Boyes,
more importantly, qualitative analysis there are few studies on the teaching 2008). They do not consider the var-
of student responses showed that they of the topic. Even less is known about ied effects of global warming at differ-
learned that our climate is changing but what students know in regard to climate ent geographic locations in the United
had constructed a linear connection be- as a system and how student knowledge States or the world (Boyes & Stanis-
tween variables such as surface tempera- can inform curriculum development and street 1993). Only a few studies (Gowda,
ture and drought. The students did not teaching. In the following sections we Fox, & Magelky 1997; Pruneau et al.,
develop a connected body of knowledge review the research on student miscon- 2003) have explored student understand-
or an understanding of climate as a sys- ceptions, teaching climate change, and ing of the distinction between weather
tem. Future research needs to focus on system thinking. Based on these reviews, and climate, even though this concept
curriculum development, effective sys- we developed the research questions that is fundamental to understanding climate
tem pedagogy, assessment, and teacher framed the current study. change. These studies showed that stu-
development in the context of climate dents fail to understand climate as a long
change as an interlinked system. Findings from Relevant term (over decades) average of meteorol-
Research ogical patterns, which implies that these
Introduction
students are unlikely to understand that
Scientists are unequivocal about the Research on Student Misconceptions changes in climate happen over decades,
impact of climate change on nature and and Teaching that climate change cannot be directly
living organisms (IPCC, 2013). Yet,
Climate change, undoubtedly, is an experienced as weather and that mitiga-
the public and media appear to believe
important global issue of our time but there tion would take a long time before its
that it is a controversial issue because
are a plethora of misconceptions held by benefi ts could be observed.
they perceive that scientists are not yet
students and adults. Many researchers
convinced of it (Reardon, 2011); even have studied students’ understanding and Research on Teaching Climate
some teachers believe it to be a debat- beliefs about the greenhouse effect and Change
able issue (Wise, 2010). This scientifi c
climate change. Due to space limitations, It is essential that students understand
topic is frequently viewed through the
we provide only a brief summary of the climate change and be able to make in-
lenses of political and business interests
key fi ndings in this area (see Shepardson, formed decisions about this issue and
Niyogi, Choi, & Charusombat, 2009 and its impact on society, both locally and
McCuin et al., 2014 for a detailed sum- globally. Research on teaching climate
Keywords: system thinking, climate change,
mary of misconceptions about climate change, curricular development, teacher
teaching
change). Most of the studies examined professional development, and student
WINTER 2017 VOL. 25, NO. 2 73
learning is beginning to emerge. Several three free-response items and interviews in greater detail than in previous stud-
studies report student knowledge gain as pre- and post-measures to determine ies. Furthermore, in order to develop a
as a result of teaching specifi c concepts the impact of two units on urban ecol- connected body of knowledge about cli-
regarding climate change and address- ogy and climate change. They collected mate change students need to have some
ing common misconceptions. McCuin written data from 75 students and in- understanding, however rudimentary it
et al. (2014) compared the pre-, post-, terviewed 22 students. Students gained may be, about the climate system and we
and delayed (by two weeks) post-test signifi cant knowledge about the green- need to know how students think about
scores of 197 students in an introductory house effect, warming of the climate, complex systems such as climate.
earth science course who were randomly and human impact on climate. They also
assigned to a traditional reading-based reported taking personal actions to con- Research on System Thinking
instruction (TRI) or a misconception serve energy usage. Climate is a naturally complex system
reading-based instruction (MRI). Both All of these studies report signifi cant and system thinking is necessary to under-
groups read common materials that fo- gains in student knowledge of climate stand its variations, causes, and effects.
cused on discrete accepted/scientifi c change and the greenhouse effect. They Researchers have been studying system
concepts about the greenhouse effect also report an increase in student interest thinking in many contexts. For example,
and climate change. In addition, the in mitigation of the adverse effects of cli- studies have been carried out on evolu-
TRI group (n=83) read materials that mate change or their active engagement tionary processes (Centola, Wilensky, &
consisted of scientifi c concepts and the in mitigation efforts. These studies sug- McKenzie, 2000), the aquarium system,
MRI group (n=114) read materials that gest pathways to educate students about (Hmelo-Silver, Marathe, & Liu, 2007);
addressed common student misconcep- climate change but they do not provide social systems (Booth-Sweeney, 2000),
tions. The test for this study consisted any information about student under- the hydrologic system (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf &
of 64 true/false items. The students in standing of the climate as a system, its Orion, 2010), the dynamic and cycli-
TRI and MRI groups gained signifi cant variability, and the feedback loops in the cal nature of the Earth’s crust, and the
knowledge but MRI students retained interactions of the components of the sys- rate and direction of chemical reac-
more knowledge than the TRI group. tem. The multiple-choice questions used tions (Stieff & Wilensky, 2003). Based
The authors concluded that address- by most of these studies resulted in identi- on the research on system thinking, and
ing the misconceptions via reading was fying which pieces of knowledge students their own research on student thinking
more effective for long-term retention of have acquired but they provided little in- in the context of water cycles, Ben-Zvi-
climate change and related concepts. sight into how students connect disparate Assaraf and Orion, (2010) delineated a
Another group of researchers (DeWaters components of knowledge into a coherent system thinking hierarchical model. This
et al., 2014) report a study in which mid- understanding of climate as a system. model projects that, at the simplest level,
dle and high school students were taught The nature of the tests used to assess students will be able to analyze the com-
using project-based climate change in- students’ knowledge is crucial, particu- ponents and processes within the system.
structional modules. Comparison of mid- larly when we are targeting a relatively Students at the next higher level will be
dle school (MS) and high school (HS) new domain such as climate change. In able to synthesize the relationships in
student (MS: n= 227 and HS: n=200) addition, we wanted to know about how the system; they will be able to identify
scores on a climate literacy question- students used evidence-based reason- the relationships among the components
naire consisting of cognitive and behav- ing - a practice of science prioritized by and their dynamics to organize the com-
ioral subscales showed signifi cant gain Frameworks (NRC, 2012) and NGSS ponents within a framework of relation-
in both areas after they participated (Achieve, 2013). Students’ knowledge ships, and to identify the cyclical nature
in the modules. However, the authors of science content can be tested with of the system components. Students at
also pointed out that the mean post- multiple-choice items but their exper- the highest level will be able to gener-
questionnaire scores were low for both tise in using a well-connected body of alize their understanding of the system
MS and HS students, indicating only a content to reason and explain their ob- they are learning about, understand the
small impact from the modules used in servations may require other modes of dimensions of the system, think tempo-
the study. The lack of impact suggests investigation. Researchers, who aim to rally, and make predictions.
that the curriculum and instruction both discover what students learned as well as The studies discussed above, however,
need further investigation to determine their diffi culties need to use open-ended do not clearly address the teachers’
their effectiveness. items (Gotwals & Songer, 2013; Walker & role in incorporating systems think-
McNeill and Vaughn (2012) examined Sampson, 2013). ing in classrooms. Some researchers
how students’ attending an urban high Taken together, the research on teach- (Jacobson & Wilensky, 2006; Hmelo-Silver
school made positive gains in their un- ing climate change, current reform in et al., 2007) point out that system think-
derstanding, beliefs and actions about science education, and the research on ing is essential for deeper understand-
climate change. They used a written test reform-oriented assessment indicate that ing of many topics in science, yet it is
consisting of 16 multiple-choice and we need to explore student understanding not a regular facet of teaching. They
74 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
recommend more research on system few students so that we could look for consisted of 16 questions, some of which
thinking pedagogy and ways to incorpo- patterns in the responses of a larger had multiple sub-parts. Some questions
rate it in the teaching of science. number of students. Twelve teachers of assessed student knowledge of essential
Based on our previous work on cli- the 7th and 8th grades from four schools facts (e.g., identifying greenhouse gases)
mate change education, we had proposed in a Midwestern state in the USA vol- while others assessed student reasoning
a visual representation of the climate unteered to teach climate change and and explanations. The test was adminis-
system and a conceptual framework collaborated with the researchers in tered before and after the teachers taught
for teaching about the climate system this study. All teachers were licensed the climate change topics.
(Shepardson, Niyogi, Roychoudhury, & to teach in middle schools and six of Four members of the research team
Hirsch, 2012). The framework focused them had advanced degrees in biology, independently conducted a content anal-
on the climate system components – the earth science or environmental science. ysis of written responses to the ques-
Sun, atmosphere, oceans, land, vegeta- Four had at least a bachelor’s degree in tions to identify the patterns in student
tion, and ice – and the absorption, emis- a science domain while the other three responses (Erickson, 1986; Patton, 2002).
sion, and refl ection of the Sun’s and had taken science courses required for After coding a set of 15 tests in the fi rst
other forms of energy by the compo- a middle school teaching license. Thus, round the researchers compared the
nents of the system. The other major foci most of the teachers were expected to be codes and arrived at a consensus in their
were the difference between weather well versed in system thinking in their interpretations and revised the coding
and climate, the Earth’s energy budget, own domains and in the importance of scheme accordingly. This allowed an
feedback loops, variations in the com- a connected body of knowledge. These initial triangulation, reduced the subjec-
ponents due to natural (e.g., volcano) or teachers worked with the researchers and tivity, and increased the validity of our
anthropogenic (e.g., land use) and en- developed curricula suitable for their stu- interpretation of the student responses
ergy transfer between the components dents, fi eld tested the lessons and modi- (Patton, 2002; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
of the system. The framework consisted fi ed them where they deemed necessary. This process was used iteratively two
of three conceptual levels describing in- Over a 9-11 week period, the teachers more times with additional tests and
creasing degrees of understanding for taught the following topics: a. Earth’s 89% - 91% agreement was reached as
each of the topics listed. To translate Energy Budget; b. Differential Heating a result of this process. The fi nal cod-
this framework into specifi c curriculum of the Earth’s Surface; c. Weather and ing scheme was vetted by the climate
and pedagogical goals, resources, les- Climate (including Climate Variability); scientist and the physicist for conceptual
sons, and performance expectations as d. Greenhouse Effect; e. Carbon Cycle; correctness and then used by the re-
described by Achieve (2013), requires and f. Global Warming and Climate searchers to code the entire written data
that we gather more details about student Change Impacts. Each topic consisted set. The test assessed three broad topics:
successes and challenges in learning of multiple lessons that used a variety of greenhouse effect, weather and climate,
about climate change. To this end, we materials such as hands-on experiments, and climate change. Table 1 shows ex-
constructed the following two research readings, physical models, visuals, sim- amples of questions, student responses,
questions to frame our study: ulations, and extant data on climate fac- and the scores assigned to the responses.
tors. Interactions among the components To fi nd out the overall changes in stu-
Research Question of the climate system - the Sun, the Earth dent knowledge of climate change and
i. Is there a signifi cant difference be- (ocean, land, and atmosphere), and hu- related concepts, we conducted paired
tween middle school student knowledge man impact undergirded the curriculum. t-tests of the total scores obtained by
of climate change before and after in- Four hundred and fi fty-seven students individual students. We also conducted
struction as captured by free-response from one urban and three rural schools t-tests for each of the three clusters
questions? participated in this study. mentioned: Greenhouse Effect (GHE),
ii. What are the educational implica- Weather and Climate (WCL), and a
tions of these fi ndings about student Climate Change (CLChange). The total
knowledge of climate change? Instrument and Data Analysis number of questions was different for each
The research team, consisting of a sci- cluster. GHE consisted of 7 questions (1
ence educator, an earth scientist, a physi- to 7), WCL consisted of 5 questions (8 to
The Study
cist, and a climate scientist developed the 12) and CLChange of 6 questions (13
Method content test Understanding Climate and to 16 which has four subparts). Because
This is exploratory research aimed at Climate Change (UCCC) and the partic- the questions were open ended and this
fi nding patterns in student responses to ipating teachers reviewed and provided study is exploratory in nature we did
open-ended items of a content knowl- feedback on the questions, and helped not assign a predetermined score to any
edge test relevant to the topics taught fi nalize the test. This collaborative pro- item; thus the score for each question
by middle school teachers. We used cess of developing the test established varied according to the details the stu-
written data instead of interviewing a its content and face validity. The test dents provided. Since we are exploring
WINTER 2017 VOL. 25, NO. 2 75
Table 1. Exemplars of codes with scores
Question Student response/score Rationale
Exemplars from the greenhouse effect cluster
2. What gases make up the Earth’s atmosphere? Oxygen/1 Each correct answer received one point;
Nitrogen/1 knowledge of proportional makeup of
Hydrogen/0 the atmosphere was not expected.
Carbon dioxide/1
3. Which of the gases you listed above are Carbon dioxide/1 Each correct answer received one point.
the greenhouse gases? Oxygen/0
Nitrogen/0
Water vapor/1
Air/0
4. Why are they called greenhouse gases? Absorb the Sun’s rays/ energy/Sun/1 Any response that showed that a student
Because they react with the Sun and understands that greenhouse gases absorb
heat the Earth/1 some form of radiation (infra-red or even
They come from greenhouses or if students called it heat or light) received
help plants/0 1 point.
Weather and climate cluster
Jack and Diane were trying to decide if the N/A N/A
following newspaper stories were talking
about weather or climate.
A. Indiana had more snow last winter than normal.
Over 20 inches of snow fell during the winter.
B. Indiana’s precipitation has been increasing every
year since the 1970’s. Today, there is 5 inches
more precipitation than in 1970.
C. Indiana had one of the coldest springs
in history; temperatures were 5 degrees
colder than normal.
D. Indiana’s average spring temperature is
unchanged since the 1970’s. This spring’s
temperature averaged 45 degrees compared
to 44 degrees in 1970.
10. Which of the above stories do you think A./0 The scoring was based student selection
is about climate? (There can be B./1 of the correct choice (understanding
more than one)* C./0 of the timescale).
D./1
11. Explain your answer choice for Because they talk about climate/1 Understand that climate involves a longer time;
question number 10. Climate is a long time/1 Climate involves average conditions over
Climate is average over 30 years/2 decades – this is a more sophisticated
Talks about temperature or rain or snow/0 understanding than just longer time and
therefore received 2 points.
Climate change cluster exemplars
16. Some scientists think that the Earth’s N/A N/A
climate is getting warmer.
a. If these scientists are correct what might Ocean will warm causing its level to rise For correct inference about ocean temperature
happen to the oceans? Explain why you because of melting polar ice/3 trend (1 point), water level (1 point), and
think that would happen?** Oceans will warm causing it to dry out or to about other causes such as melting of
evaporate more/0 polar ice (1 point).
* There were similar questions about weather
** There were similar questions about plants and animals as well as people and society
the changes in student knowledge and the clusters. The data were analyzed us- Therefore, to determine the effect of
thoughts, the scoring procedure was ing SAS 9.4, and the results are provided teaching of each topic, the effect size
deemed appropriate for this study. All the in Table 2. was also calculated. The effect size
tests were conducted at the 95% confi - Because of the large sample size, compares the difference of the means
dence interval. The t-test results indicated it was probable that the difference to the pooled standard deviation (i.e.,
that there was a signifi cant difference between the pre-and the post-test the root mean square of the individual
between pre- and post-test scores for all score would appear to be signifi cant. standard deviations). The effect sizes
76 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
Table 2. t values with an asterisk had p<0.0001 (n=110) of the students mentioned prox-
imity to oceans as a factor affecting the
cluster n variable mean std dev effect size t(456)
climate of location. Irrespective of the
GHE 457 pre 7.71 4.15 0.92 18.06*
factors that the students mentioned, they
post 12.27 5.16
did not explain how these features affected
WCL 457 pre 2.88 2.58 0.69 11.92* the Earth’s climate in different locations,
post 4.88 3.22 how these factors interacted, or how the
CLChange 457 pre 6.87 2.82 0.32 5.95* interactions infl uenced the climate.
post 7.77 2.83 It is perhaps not surprising that the stu-
dent knowledge gain was the lowest for
Total 457 pre 17.45 6.94 0.92 19.10*
the CLChange cluster, given the rudi-
post 24.92 9.19 mentary nature of their knowledge about
weather and climate. Even though student
indicate that the CLChange cluster had understanding of the GHE as refl ected knowledge of climate change improved
much smaller improvement in scores by their responses on the post-test. Only signifi cantly after instruction, the effect
compared to the other two clusters. 15.3% (n=70) students thought the GHE size for this cluster is small – only .32.
For sample sizes greater than 30, a to be the same as a greenhouse, whereas, A majority of the students (83%; n=379)
normality test need not be carried out 35.6% (n=163) thought that greenhouse knew that the Earth’s climate is getting
(Ghasemi 2012). Nevertheless, we con- gases “trap” the sun’s rays, heating the warmer; however, fewer than half of the
ducted one for completeness of the anal- Earth and another 34.2% (n=156) thought students (39%; n=178) provided any de-
ysis. The Shapiro-Wilk results indicated that the Sun’s rays are “bounced” or re- tail about the effects of climate change
that the distributions were not normal fl ected back and forth between the Earth such as a reduction of the polar ice sheet
at the 95% confi dence level. Therefore, surface and greenhouse gases (the best and its possible consequences. None of
as a check, we conducted the Wilcoxon model held by these middles school the students showed any awareness of the
signed-rank test, a non-parametric test, students). However, even this model is related feedback loop between ice, ocean,
which is used instead of the t-test in quite rudimentary and does not refl ect and the atmosphere. A small fraction of
situations of non-normal distributions. any understanding of the climate system the students (17%; n=78) mentioned hu-
The results agree with the t-tests, that is, (Shepardson et al., 2012). man activities and increased carbon diox-
there was signifi cant difference between Student knowledge gain about weather ide in the atmosphere as the reason for the
the pre- and post-tests for all the clusters. and climate was also signifi cant, with elevated temperature.
a moderate effect size (.69). Their un- In response to the questions about
Findings derstanding of the difference between the effects of global warming on ocean,
Students gained signifi cant (p<.0001) weather and climate improved after in- weather, plants, animals, people, and
knowledge about all the topics related struction. They were able to distinguish society, students mentioned that ocean
to climate change that were tested with between the two in terms of timescale levels will rise, weather will get warmer
a large effect size (.92), however, their from the statements provided (see Table leading to more evaporation and drought
gains about different clusters of concepts 1: Weather and Climate cluster exem- or longer summers. Students thought
varied (Table 2). Their knowledge gain plar). Most of the students understood that plants and animals will die and if
was the highest in the GHE cluster and it that climate is a pattern that exists over they provided any reason then it was the
also had the highest effect size. We dis- a long time period and they mentioned increased temperature or heat. A few
cuss student responses from the post-tests decades as the scale in their explanations. (less than 10%; n=42) mentioned an
because these tell us student knowledge, Likewise, they knew that weather is what interaction between plants and animals
claims, and explanations after instruction happens over a short time period, now as (the food chain)—the animals will die
and hope that these point to the directions opposed to over a year or a few years but because plants will die. A few other stu-
that future research may take. not decades. On the post-test, most of the dents mentioned that some plants would
Using a previously developed model students (62%; n=283) listed geographic thrive in the warmer climate as well as
from student responses (Shepardson et al., features, such as the distance of a loca- some animals because they would have
2009) we found that 47% (n=215) of the tion from the equator and sunlight, on the more food due to an increase in vegeta-
students believed GHE was the same as a post-test as the reasons for variations in tion. Student responses about the impact
greenhouse for growing plants (an incor- climate at different locations on the Earth. of a warming climate on people and so-
rect idea) and 25.7% (n=117) thought that Many students (over 80%; n=366) also ciety were very similar to the ones on
GHE means there are some greenhouse mentioned weather conditions (perhaps plants and animals. That is, people will
gases in the atmosphere with no men- implying that climate is the average of die due to heat and lack of water or food
tion or explanation of the heating mecha- weather) and temperature as determiners or due to illness caused by warming (of
nism. There was a major shift in student of the climate of a location. Only 24% the Earth). A few students thought that
WINTER 2017 VOL. 25, NO. 2 77
technological advances would provide might take a long time to mitigate these global warming. They also saw effects
solutions to global warming. In general, effects. Thus, there is a need for long- of climate change in terms of simple
most students wrote only one effect of a term policies and actions. They are likely and linear relationships (e.g.,, warmer
warming of the climate and provided no to become aware of the importance and average temperature would melt ice or
reason for the effect they claimed would challenges of mitigation and participate evaporate water) which indicated that
happen. They appeared to not be famil- in taking informed actions in their per- they did not think of climate as a sys-
iar with the scientifi c practice of provid- sonal lives as members of society. This tem with many components, and they
ing evidence or theoretical support for a understanding may help them decide did not show any understanding of in-
claim. about what kind of light bulb they select teractions among the components. An-
or what kind of agricultural practice they other major limitation in their thinking
Implications adopt or whether they vote for increased was a lack of awareness of the interac-
Our work was grounded in the lit- use of renewable energy and similar tions and the non-linear feedback loops
erature on climate and climate change energy-climate issues. Other researchers that research on system thinking holds
education and the fi ndings from student have noted the development of favorable as fundamental to understanding the
pre-test data, which essentially corrobo- attitudes toward mitigation and taking Earth’s climate (Shepardson et al., 2012;
rated the trends in the relevant litera- adaptive action in students after learning Ben-Zvi-Assaraf et al., 2009). It was evi-
ture. To complement the fi ndings from about climate change. Although we did dent that students did not consider dif-
that extant research on teaching climate not assess student attitudes, we interpret ferential effects of global warming at
change, we aimed at fi nding out details from student responses that being more different locations on the Earth, that an
about middle school student knowledge informed will help them make better increase in the average temperature of
in this domain, using open-ended ques- decisions. the Earth does not mean a higher temper-
tions. We posit that understanding of Students in our study also developed ature everywhere. Also, they envisioned
climate change should also include an a basic understanding of climate change a hotter earth becoming drier and did not
understanding of the climate system. as a warming of the Earth, as noted by consider that warmer bodies of water
However, given the emerging nature of other researchers (DeWaters et al., 2014; can result in increased precipitation due
curriculum and instruction in this area, McCuin et al., 2014; McNeill et al., 2012). to evaporation and condensation. These
not much is known about student system However, this understanding was quite students’ linear and incomplete thinking
thinking in this context. We hope that our superfi cial as the students showed only was evident in their description of polar
fi ndings would shed some light on stu- a linear view of climate change, in the ice sheet melting. They did not consider
dent successes and challenges in learn- sense that the warming will have a dry- the consequences of ice melting, such as
ing about climate change and in thinking ing effect (e.g., drought) and people and reduction in albedo and an increase in
about the climate system and inform fu- animals will die or have to move to other the “heat” absorbed by the ocean that,
ture research on climate change teaching locations. This rudimentary knowledge in turn, would impact the Earth’s energy
and learning. nonetheless forms an essential founda- budget and have varied effects at differ-
As in other studies (DeWaters, et al., tion on which more sophisticated un- ent geographic regions. Furthermore,
2014; Lee, et al., 2007; McCuin et al., derstanding can be built later. This also these students primarily thought about
2014; McNeill & Vaughn, 2012), these points to a possible direction of future drought as an effect of global warming
middle school students gained signifi - curriculum development and teaching. and did not mention the effect on ocean-
cant knowledge about GHE. Additionally, Other studies (DeWaters et al., 2014; level rising or the impact of climate
they also gained knowledge about the McCuin et al., 2014; McNeill & Vaughn, change on increasing severe storms. Put
difference between weather and climate 2012) have tested student knowledge another way, the students did not show
and climate change, a fundamental con- gain using multiple choice questions and an awareness of the multitudes of evi-
cept that the other researchers did not ad- have shown that students learned sub- dence of climate change that could show
dress. In fact, others have noted that the sets of facts about climate change, but some awareness of the climate as a sys-
students in their studies did not under- those fi ndings did not inform us about tem. Although, from our current study,
stand the timescale issue about climate students’ overall thinking about climate we cannot draw conclusions about the
change. The understanding of the dif- change. Even the interview data col- reasons for this kind of simplistic linear
ference between weather and climate is lected by McNeill and Vaughn did not view of the Earth’s climate and changes,
the foundation for understanding climate provide any information about student we can consider the implications of such
variability and change, particularly, the knowledge of the climate system. In- piecemeal knowledge gathering and lin-
timescale underlying the change. With deed, by asking open-ended questions, ear thinking for future research in this
this basic idea, students may be able to we found that students did not construct domain.
understand that as it takes decades to a richly connected body of knowledge In this section we will fi rst describe our
establish convincing records of change about GHE and climate change. They inferences about teaching and learning
in the Earth’s climate and its impact, it saw climate change to be the same as and then their implications. There could
78 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
be many reasons why students responded At the outset, we want to underscore fore in curricula and in teaching about
the way they did. Discussion within the that we agree with researchers (e.g., climate change. Future research needs
study team, including the teachers, led Sampson & Blanchard, 2012) who point to determine where in a curriculum the
us to infer several possible reasons for out that teaching and assessment in most concept of climate as a system should
student performances. First, the teachers science courses – even at the undergrad- be introduced, what the level of system
may have taught a more complex view of uate level – aim at acquisition of knowl- thinking at which researchers would
climate change with an implicit reference edge and this is the model teachers tend aim should be, at which points the un-
to the underlying system but students to embrace in their teaching. As a conse- derstanding of climate system should be
only wrote about global warming because quence, their students may not learn to modifi ed in light of new concepts, and
that is what they have heard about in write answers with explanations – some- how student understanding of climate
the media and remembered. Second, the thing that we had expected to see in this system should be assessed. For example,
teachers may not have taught much more study. Our study shows that students need we (the researchers and the teachers)
about climate change than a general view to learn about the climate system, rather conceptualized the lessons on Earth’s
of global warming; they may have used than facts about the changes and their energy budget with the fl ow of energy
only linear examples such as the drying causes. Understanding climate change through the climate system as the core
effect of climate change. Third, students involves understanding complicated idea and fl ow of matter through the sys-
generally take multiple-choice tests and evidence from various sources such as tem in the carbon cycle. However, stu-
quizzes and are not accustomed to writ- ocean, ice, atmosphere, land, human ac- dents did not connect the concepts, nor
ing detailed explanations. Consequently, tivities and the interactions among them did they demonstrate any understanding
they could have assumed that writing (NASA, 2015). Some researchers (Ben-Zvi- of climate as a system, implying that
down a short answer or one cause or one Assaraf & Orion, 2010; Jacobson & future research needs to focus on how
effect would suffi ce. Fourth, our expecta- Wilensky, 2006; Hmelo-Silver et al., teaching, learning, and assessment can
tion was that students would write com- 2007) recommend more research on help students develop a connected body
plete explanations consisting of claims system thinking pedagogy and the ways of concepts and think about climate as a
supported by evidence to the open-ended to incorporate it into the teaching of system.
items, yet many studies have shown that science. This may be the crux of the is- In summary, we think that future re-
the scientifi c practice of evidence-based sue. Even teachers who have extensive search needs to explore what integra-
reasoning has to be explicitly taught in knowledge of systems in their domains tion of system thinking into teaching of
school and even in college-level science of science may not have the pedagogi- climate change, beginning at the middle
courses (Osborne et al, 2004; Walker & cal resources to utilize this knowledge school level, would look like. Research
Sampson, 2014). Fifth, the teachers may in teaching. Future research can begin also needs to focus on curriculum de-
have taught many concepts regarding cli- with the conceptual framework for the velopment, effective system pedagogy,
mate change, but did not explicitly engage various levels of understanding of the assessment, and teacher development in
students in connecting those together to climate system (Shepardson et al., 2012) the context of climate change.
promote a system view. As a result, stu- and translating it into lessons that pro-
dents wrote only the most basic ideas as mote system thinking appropriate for
References
their responses. Sixth, even though more each level. Furthermore, research needs
Achieve (2013). Next generation Sci-
than half of the teachers had extensive to explore what system thinking peda-
ence Standards. Retrieved from http://
knowledge of science (a bachelors degree gogy might look like. What strategies
w.w.w.nextgenscience.org
in a science discipline) and fi ve of them should teachers adopt to promote stu-
have advanced degrees, and presumably dent development of a connected body Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Stu-
dents’ understanding of the greenhouse
should have been quite familiar with sys- of knowledge about climate change? In
effect, the societal consequences of re-
tem thinking, their knowledge did not re- what sequence should the components
ducing CO2 emissions and the problem
sult in effective pedagogy. The last is of of the climate system – the Sun, atmo-
of ozone layer depletion. Journal of
small surprise as it is well known among sphere, oceans, land, and vegetation – be
Research in Science Teaching, 37(10),
educators that deep content knowledge taught and in what sequence should the 1096-1111.
does not generate effective pedagogical interactions among these components be
Cordero, E. C., Todd, A. M., & Abellera,
strategies. Although there can be other taught? Given that teaching progresses
D. (2008). Climate change education
reasons for the students’ simplistic an- linearly, at which point should the con- and the ecological footprint. Bulletin of
swers and they could be addressed in nections among the concepts be estab- the American Meteorological Society,
other ways, we think that the reasons we lished and what pedagogical strategies 89(6), 865-872.
inferred here have implications for curric- should be tried in this regard?
Ben-Zvi-Assaraf , O., & Orion, N. (2010).
ulum development, teacher professional Based on our fi ndings and the litera- Four case studies, six years later: Devel-
development, and instruction of content ture we reviewed, we postulate that sys- oping system thinking skills in junior
and the practice of science. tem thinking may need to come in the high school and sustaining them over
WINTER 2017 VOL. 25, NO. 2 79
time. Journal of Research in Science Gowda, M. V. R., Fox, J. C., & Magelky, implications for the learning sciences.
Teaching, 47(10), 1253-1280. R. D. (1997). Students’ understanding Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1),
of climate change: Insights for scientists 11-34.
Booth Sweeny, L. (2000). Bathtub dynam-
and educators. Bulletin of the American
ics: Initial results of a systems thinking National Research Council. (NRC). (2012).
Meteorological Society, 78(10), 2232-
inventory. Retrieved from http://web. A Framework for K-12 Science Educa-
2240.
mit.edu/jsterman/www/bathtub.pdf tion: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts,
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The Hestness, E., Christopher McDonald, R., and Core Ideas. Committee on a Concep-
‘Greenhouse Effect’: Children’s percep- Breslyn, W., McGinnis, J. R., & Mouza, tual Framework for New K-12 Science
tions of causes, consequences and cures. C. (2014). Science teacher professional Education Standards. Board on Science
International Journal of Science Educa- development in climate change educa- Education, Division of Behavioral and
tion, 15(5), 531-552. tion informed by the next generation sci- Social Sciences and Education. Washing-
ence standards. Journal of Geoscience ton, DC: The National Academies Press.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1997).
Education, 62(3), 319-329.
Children’s models of understanding of NASA (2015). Global Climate Change:
two major global environmental issues Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved from
(ozone layer and greenhouse effect). Re- (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs http://climate.nasa.gov
search in Science &Technological Edu- breathe: Expert-novice understanding of Osterlind, K. (2005). Concept formation in
cation, 15(1), 19-28. complex systems. Journal of the Learn- environmental education: 14-year olds’
ing Sciences, 16(3), 307-331.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2001). work on the intensifi ed greenhouse ef-
Global warming: What do high school Intergovernmental Panel on Climate fect and the depletion of the ozone layer.
students know 10 years on? World Re- Change (2014). Climate change 2014: International Journal of Science Educa-
source Review, 13(2), 221-238. Synthesis Report. http://www.ipcc.ch/ tion, 27(8), 891–908.
pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_
Centola, D., McKenzie, E., & Wilensky, Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research
AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf
U. (2000). Survival of the groupiest: and evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand
Facilitating students’ understanding of Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Oaks, CA: Sage.
multi-level evolution through multi- Complex systems in education: Scien-
Pruneau, D., Gravel, H., Courque, W., &
agent modeling—the EACH project. A tifi c and educational importance and
Langis, J. (2003). Experimentation with
paper presented in The 4th international implications for the learning sciences.
a socio-constructivist process for cli-
conference on complex systems. Nashua, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1),
mate change education. Environmental
NH: New England Complex Systems 11-34.
Education Research, 9(4), 429-446.
Institute. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. (2003).
Reardon, S. (2011, August 5). Climate
Cordero, E. C., Todd, A. M., & Abellera, The effect of knowledge integration ac-
change sparks battles in classroom. Sci-
D. (2008). Climate change education tivities on students’ perception of the
and the ecological footprint. Bulletin of Earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal ence, 688-689.
the American Meteorological Society, of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), Rye, J. A., Rubba, P. A., & Wiesenmayer,
89(6), 865-872. 545–565. R. L. (1997). An investigation of middle
DeWaters, J. E., Andersen, C., Calderwood, Lee, O., Lester, B. T., Ma, L., Lambert, school students’ alternative concep-
A., & Powers, S. E. (2014). Improv- J., & Jean-Baptiste, M. (2007). Concep- tions of global warming. International
ing climate literacy with project-based tions of the greenhouse effect and global Journal of Science Education, 19(5),
modules rich in educational rigor and warming among elementary students 527–551.
relevance. Journal of Geoscience Edu- from diverse languages and cultures. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012).
cation, 62(3), 469-484. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(2), Science teachers and scientifi c argu-
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research 117-125. mentation: Trends in views and practice.
on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), McNeill, K. M., & Vaughn, M. H. (2012). Journal of Research in Science Teach-
Handbook for research on teaching Urban high school students’ critical sci- ing, 49(9), 1122-1148.
(3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: ence agency: Conceptual understand- Shepardson, D. P., Roychoudhury, A.,
Macmillan. ings and environmental actions around Hirsch, A., & Niyogi, D. (2012). Con-
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Nor- climate change. Research in Science ceptualizing climate change in the con-
mality tests for statistical analysis: A Education, 42(2), 373-399. text of a climate system: Implications for
guide for non-statisticians. International McCuin, J. L., Hayhoe, K., & Hayhoe, D. climate and environmental education.
Journal of Endocrinology and Metabo- (2014). Comparing the effects of tradi- Environmental Education Research,
lism, 10(2), 486–489. tional vs. misconceptions-based instruc- 18(3), 323-352.
tion on student understanding of the
Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013). Va- Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S.,
greenhouse effect. Journal of Geosci-
lidity evidence for learning progression- & Charusombat, U. (2009). Seventh
ence Education, 62(3), 445-459.
based assessment items that fuse core grade students’ conceptions of global
disciplinary ideas and science practices. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). warming and climate change. Envi-
Journal of Research in Science Teach- Complex systems in education: Scien- ronmental Education Research, 15(5),
ing, 50(5), 597-626. tifi c and educational importance and 549-570.
80 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connect- science teachers. Journal of Geoscience Devdutta Niyogi, PhD, Professor, Earth,
ed chemistry: Incorporating interactive Education, 58(5), 297–309. Atmospheric, and Planetary Science, Pur-
simulations into the chemistry class- due University.
Anita Roychoudhury, PhD, Professor,
room. Journal of Science Education and
Curriculum and Instruction, Physics and Jignesh Mehta, Research Associate,
Technology, 12(3), 285–302.
Astronomy (Courtesy), Purdue University. Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University.
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning Correspondence concerning this article
to argue and arguing to learn: Argument- should be sent to: Anita Roychoudhury, Sara Top, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Sioux
driven inquiry as a way to help under- Purdue University, 4138 Beering Hall, 100 Center, Dordt College, Iowa.
graduate chemistry students learn how N University Street. West Lafayette, IN
Acknowledgements: The study reported
to construct arguments and engage in ar- 47907. Email: [email protected]
in this chapter was partially supported by
gumentation during a laboratory course. Daniel P. Shepardson, PhD, Profes-
the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, sor, Curriculum and Instruction, Earth,
award number DRL 0822181. The opin-
50(5), 561-596. Atmospheric, and Planetary Science, Pur-
ions, fi ndings, and conclusions or recom-
due University.
Wise, S. B. (2010). Climate change in the mendations expressed in this article are
classroom: Patterns, motivations, and Andrew Hirsch, PhD, Professor, Physics those of the authors and do not necessarily
barriers to instruction among Colorado and Astronomy, Purdue University. refl ect the views of the NSF.
WINTER 2017 VOL. 25, NO. 2 81