Developing a learning progression for three‐dimensional learning of the patterns of evolution

Abstract

This paper examines how students make progress toward threedimensional (3D) understanding of the patterns of evolution.Specifically, it proposes a learning progression that explains how scientific practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas come together in naming and grouping, length of change over time, and the role of common ancestry in evolutionary relatedness.To develop this learning progression, we created a 3D plant evolution curriculum for urban middle school students and over two implementation cycles we measured student understanding before, during, and after use of the curriculum. We used an iterative design, grounded in evidence of student learning over time to develop and revise our learning progression framework, assessments, and curriculum. The learning progression developed through this process is a template for conceptual learning through scientific practice, the type of 3D learning advocated by the Next Generation Science Standards. This paper describes the interplay between scientific practice learning and conceptual learning and the implications of this research for curriculum and assessment design.

Evaluating a learning progression for the solar system: Progress along gravity and dynamical properties dimensions

“…Unlike many other studies that have examined written assessment data to provide evidence for a LP, our observations were based on pre‐ and post‐instruction, clinical interviews with students (Ginsburg, 1997). This method has been previously used to provide evidence for LP validity in a few studies (e.g., Hokayem & Gotwals, 2016; Plummer, 2014; Wyner & Doherty, 2017). Our method of interpretation consisted of aligning coded interviews with the levels of each construct map.…”

Is being familiar with biodiversity related to reasoning about ecology?

“…We recognize that the use of “traits” in this question set may have made students lean toward describing physical aspects of relatedness, but we want to recognize that despite this, a number of students still referred to taxonomy and evolution in their responses. Wyner and Doherty () supported the idea that taxonomy is less often invoked by students, and it is notable when they do that without prompting. However, we acknowledge and value the variety of rationales students use and adhere to the ideas of Ehrlich and Holm () when they state that relatedness can be conceptualized in many different ways (e.g., traits, taxonomy) and that all ways of knowing relatedness are valid.…”

“…). Naming organisms is considered a foundational aspect of learning about biodiversity; it is important to infuse this into the coursework and encourage students to learn organism names and organismal roles in the local ecosystem through experience (Randler , Soga and Gaston , Wyner and Doherty ).…”

“…Previous literature has shown that beyond the ages of 8-9, the addition of new organism names to a child's vocabulary begins to wane (Balmford et al 2002), a pattern that could stem from curriculum design that discourages informal and outdoor learning experiences (Braun et al 2010, Waite 2010, Maynard et al 2013). Naming organisms is considered a foundational aspect of learning about biodiversity; it is important to infuse this into the coursework and encourage students to learn organism names and organismal roles in the local ecosystem through experience (Randler 2008, Soga and Gaston 2016, Wyner and Doherty 2017.…”

“…There is a growing body of literature that examines how students conceptualize relationships among different organisms. For example, when asked to group organisms together, students of all ages use superficial features, such as morphology, habitat, and movement as criteria for relatedness (Braund , , Kattmann , Burgoon and Duran , Cinici , Wyner and Doherty ). These habits remained even in college‐aged students (Trowbridge and Mintzes ).…”