Is being familiar with biodiversity related to reasoning about ecology?

Abstract

Many science educators believe that student recognition of biodiversity is an important precursor to discovering patterns and understanding processes that define and shape ecological systems. We investigated (1) the total number, taxonomic categories, specificity, and diversity of backyard organisms that middle (MS) and high school (HS) students and teachers named, (2) how the number, specificity, and diversity of organisms that students and teachers named related to their overall performance on an ecology learning progression assessment, and (3) the types of information students used to sort and group organisms. Our sample population included 264 MS students, 374 HS students, and 108 teachers in five U.S. states (California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, and New York). We found that students were more likely to name vertebrates than plants or microorganisms, while teachers were more likely to name vertebrate and plants than microorganisms. Teachers named a higher total number (richness) and diversity of organisms and named more organisms in specific (e.g., bull snake) than general taxonomic categories (e.g., snake) than did students. Individual performance on the ecology learning progression assessment was positively correlated to the total number (richness), diversity, and specificity of organisms that students and teachers could name. The types of information students invoked to group organisms together varied by question context. Most students invoked information related to form/outward traits, habitat, function (e.g., decomposer), and taxa (e.g., fungi, plant, animal). Notably, some students invoked ideas about evolutionary relationships among organisms. This work corroborates previous findings about student familiarity with biodiversity and provides preliminary evidence that familiarity with local biodiversity is linked to reasoning about ecology.

Using a Three-Tier Multiple-Choice Diagnostic Instrument Toward Alternative Conceptions Among Lower-Secondary School Students in Taiwan: Taking Ecosystems Unit as an Example

“…Eventually, students wrongly concluded that they could classify animals of different species but of the same family or the same order into the same species. Le, et al (2018) found that lower-secondary school students face real obstacles when classifying even most known animals (geese, butterflies, crocodiles, etc.). These obstacles are often misconceptions and are poorly treated and reformulated in the teaching-learning process.…”

Characterizing personalized ecologies

“…First, such assessments tend to be rather removed from the process of identifying living organisms under field conditions, often for example using static images or drawings. Second, they have tended to be at the species level, rather than higher taxonomic or other groupings, although people's knowledge is often poorer at the species level (Gosler & Tilling, 2022; Le et al., 2018). Third, and making them more relevant to personalized ecologies, they have tended to focus on species that are native to the broad area or country in which the people being assessed reside (rather than concerning species drawn from a global pool).…”

“…As a Thomas Henry Huxley review, I will focus predominantly on direct interactions between people and other animals. The full personalized ecology of an individual person is obviously much broader, although many people tend actually to be more aware of animals than plants, and indeed may pay very little heed to plants, giving rise to the phenomenon of ‘plant‐blindness’ in many urban and higher income societies (Balding & Williams, 2016; Le et al., 2018; Stagg & Dillon, 2022); such ‘blindness’ doubtless applies also to many other non‐animal and animal groups. Amongst animals, people seem particularly to be aware of birds, arguably because these are virtually ubiquitous (occurring in most environments), predominantly day active and reliant on vision, large bodied (by animal standards) and often mobile, appear diverse in colour and form to human vision, are vocal and typically at frequencies to which human hearing is sensitive, exhibit an array of observable behaviours, often only flee at relatively short distances from potential threats (including people), and are relatively very well known (Gaston, 2022).…”