A learning progression for water in socio‐ecological systems

Abstract

Providing model‐based accounts (explanations and predictions) of water and substances in water moving through environmental systems is an important practice for environmental science literacy and necessary for citizens confronting global and local water quantity and quality issues. In this article we present a learning progression for water in environmental systems for students in elementary through high school grades. We investigated student accounts of water and substances in water moving through atmospheric, surface, and soil/groundwater systems, including human‐engineered components of these systems. Using an iterative process of model design, assessment, and interpretation, we identified four levels of achievement in student reasoning. Levels 1 and 2 force‐dynamic accounts explain movement of water as interactions between natural tendencies of water and countervailing powers. Level 3 incomplete school science accounts put events in order and trace water and substance along multiple pathways that include hidden and invisible components. Only Level 4 qualitative model‐based accounts include driving forces and constraining factors to explain or predict where water and substances in water move in given situations. The majority of high school students on average provide accounts between levels 2 and 3. We discuss the significance of these results for citizen participation in addressing common water issues. We end with suggestions for how the water learning progression can be used to inform changes to curricula, assessment, and instruction to support students in achieving level 4 performance. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 843–868, 2012

Development of a Learning Progression for the Formation of the Solar System

“…From there, the initial LP hypothesis can be further developed either with cross-age samples (e.g. Gunckel, Covitt, Salinas, & Anderson, 2012;Mayes et al, 2014) or in the context of instruction (e.g. Shea & Duncan, 2013;Yin, Tomita, & Shavelson, 2014).…”

Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy

“…Learning progressions are delineated by an upper and a lower anchor (Gunckel, Covitt, Salinas, & Anderson, 2012). Students' tentative understanding of a particular idea or concept upon entering the learning progression defines the lower anchor (Neumann, Viering, Boone, & Fischer, 2013).…”

“…The methodology of Jin and Anderson's (2012) study was used by many others on learning progression. Using a similar method, Gunckel, Covitt, Salinas, & Anderson (2012) conducted a learning progression study on the concept of water in socio-ecological systems, targeting citizen participation in handling prevalent water problems. Their findings suggested that some changes in the curriculum, assessments, and interventions could be conducted to distinguish students' performances into four levels.…”

The Role of Coherent Research-Based Curricular Unit in Mediating Students’ Integrated Vision of Human Impact on the Environment

“…The significance of sound understanding of environmental problems becomes central for citizen participation in addressing issues stemming from human interference with natural systems (Mohan et al, 2009;Gunckel et al, 2012). Therefore, in order to gain agency in evidence-based decisionmaking on environment-related issues from a scientific perspective, students need to develop understanding of causal relationships among entities implicated in the negative impact of the agricultural production on ecological systems (Gunckel et al, 2012;Williamson, 2011).…”

“…The overarching goal of the curricular unit aims to emphasize causal relations among entities implicated in the agricultural impact on the environment. As a result of this coherent curricular sequence, ecology high school students establish evidence-based causal relations among entities in mapping out connection between nitrogen and carbon cycles as a mechanism implicated in the impact of intensive agriculture on ecological systems (Mohan et al, 2009;Gunckel et al, 2012;Williamson, 2011). Such an approach intends to facilitate students' understanding of lower level activities and encourage students to use causal relations to construct evidence-based explanation about higher-level observable phenomenon (Williamson, 2011).…”