Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems

Lally, Diane; Forbes, Cory T.

doi:10.3390/w12041040

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decades of research on the conceptual understanding of hydrological systems reveals that students struggle with issues of scale and the connectedness of system components in the natural world [3][4][5][6][7]. Similar to recent studies by Arthurs and Elwondger [3] and Lally and Forbes [8], the present study leverages visual models (e.g., diagrams) to explore students' reasoning about surface and ground water processes. One rationale for this approach is to understand our students' knowledge base and how that differs from the scientific knowledge that people need to make informed decisions about water-related issues (e.g., town planning boards, community referenda).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Assessing Water Literacy: Undergraduate Student Conceptions of Groundwater and Surface Water Flow

LaDue

Ackerman

Blaum

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the importance of fresh water, we investigated undergraduate students’ understanding of water flow and its consequences. We probed introductory geology students’ pre-instruction knowledge using a classroom management system at two large research-intensive universities. Open-ended clicker questions, where students click directly on diagrams using their smart device (e.g., cell phone, tablet) to respond, probed students’ predictions about: (1) groundwater movement and (2) velocity and erosion in a river channel. Approximately one-third of students correctly identified groundwater flow as having lateral and vertical components; however, the same number of students identified only vertical components to flow despite the diagram depicting enough topographic gradient for lateral flow. For rivers depicted as having a straight channel, students correctly identified zones of high velocity. However, for curved river channels, students incorrectly identified the inside of the bend as the location of greatest erosion and highest velocity. Systematic errors suggest that students have mental models of water flow that are not consistent with fluid dynamics. The use of students’ open-ended clicks to reveal common errors provided an efficient tool to identify conceptual challenges associated with the complex spatial and temporal processes that govern water movement in the Earth system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Assessing Water Literacy: Undergraduate Student Conceptions of Groundwater and Surface Water Flow

LaDue

Ackerman

Blaum

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Making sense of environmental issues that have relevance to one's life and community requires the ability to intertwine the science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Researchers have described students’ explanations of water in environmental systems (Covitt et al, 2009; Forbes et al, 2015; Gunckel, Covitt, et al, 2012), modeling practices with respect to the water cycle (Pierson et al, 2017; Schwarz et al, 2009), and systems thinking about water (Ben‐Zvi Assaraf & Orion, 2005; Fick, 2018; Fick et al, 2021; Lally & Forbes, 2020). Our research shows how student engagement in computational thinking can be an integral component of environmental science literacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These systems, however, do not operate separately from human actions (ESS3.A and ESS3.C). Environmental systems, such as groundwater and surface water systems, include both natural and connected human‐engineered components and are inseparably linked to human social and economic systems (Gunckel, Covitt, et al, 2012; Lally & Forbes, 2020). Groundwater and surface water systems provide fresh water necessary for living systems, including the global human population.…”

Section: Background and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the agent-based modeling environment, individual agents that operate independently but are guided by a set of rules are used to investigate interactions within systems (Bonabeau, 2002;Goldstone & Wilensky, 2008;Grimm et al, 2006;Wilensky & Rand, 2015;Wilensky & Reisman, 2006). Our research builds on previous learning progressions for disciplinary ideas relevant to water moving through environmental systems, (Forbes et al, 2015; as well as work on student understanding of systems and system models of water in the environment (Fick et al, 2021;Lally & Forbes, 2020;Sabel et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computational thinking for using models of water flow in environmental systems: Intertwining three dimensions in a learning progression

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly a decade ago, the Framework for K‐12 Science Education argued for the need to intertwine science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts in performance expectations. However, there are few empirical examples for how intertwining three dimensions facilitates learning. In this study, we used a learning progressions approach to examine how student engagement in computational thinking (science and engineering practice) intertwines with learning about the flow of water through environmental systems (disciplinary core ideas) and understanding of systems and system models (crosscutting concept). We developed three secondary‐level curriculum units situated in current groundwater contamination and urban flooding contexts. Units included specially designed NetLogo computational models. Post‐assessments measured student performances in computational thinking processes and understanding of hydrologic systems. Using item response theory in our analysis, we identified distinct levels of performance on a learning progression. At the lower end, literal model users interacted with models and manipulated model interfaces to achieve a specified goal. In the middle, Model Technicians used computational models to solve real‐world problems. At the upper end, principle‐based model users used computational thinking processes and principles related to systems modeling and hydrology to explain how the models worked to predict water flow. Differences between performances of literal model users, model technicians, and principle‐based model users reflected shifts in how students made sense of the systems and system models crosscutting concept. These shifts in performances aligned with progress in computational thinking practices and finally with use of hydrology disciplinary core ideas. These findings contribute to understanding of how science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts intertwine during learning; how computational thinking practices develop; and how computational thinking about system models facilitates learning for environmental science literacy.

show abstract

“…Given that SSI have generally served as meaningful contexts for students' to better understand the science concepts that underlie SSI, as well as for reasoning about societal aspects of SSI by way of engagement in SSR (i.e., functional scientific literacy), we would expect SHI to serve similarly as meaningful contexts for the development of functional water literacy. Studies have begun to emerge that illustrate some of the criteria students consider when making decisions about the resolution of SHI [19], systems thinking they employ [42], and how their personal values inform their reasoning [20]. However, the potential for the SSR construct to provide a concrete means for developing functional water literacy in the context of SHI is underexplored, particularly in undergraduate courses with a direct focus on water.…”

Section: Ssr About Shimentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultivating Water Literacy in STEM Education: Undergraduates’ Socio-Scientific Reasoning about Socio-Hydrologic Issues

Owens

Petitt

Lally

et al. 2020

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water-literate individuals effectively reason about the hydrologic concepts that underlie socio-hydrological issues (SHI), but functional water literacy also requires concomitant reasoning about the societal, non-hydrological aspects of SHI. Therefore, this study explored the potential for the socio-scientific reasoning construct (SSR), which includes consideration of the complexity of issues, the perspectives of stakeholders involved, the need for ongoing inquiry, skepticism about information sources, and the affordances of science toward the resolution of the issue, to aid undergraduates in acquiring such reasoning skills. In this fixed, embedded mixed methods study (N = 91), we found SHI to hold great potential as meaningful contexts for the development of water literacy, and that SSR is a viable and useful construct for better understanding undergraduates’ reasoning about the hydrological and non-hydrological aspects of SHI. The breadth of reasoning sources to which participants referred and the depth of the SSR they exhibited in justifying those sources varied within and between the dimensions of SSR. A number of participants’ SSR was highly limited. Implications for operationalizing, measuring, and describing undergraduate students’ SSR, as well as for supporting its development for use in research and the classroom, are discussed.

show abstract

Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

Assessing Water Literacy: Undergraduate Student Conceptions of Groundwater and Surface Water Flow

Assessing Water Literacy: Undergraduate Student Conceptions of Groundwater and Surface Water Flow

Computational thinking for using models of water flow in environmental systems: Intertwining three dimensions in a learning progression

Cultivating Water Literacy in STEM Education: Undergraduates’ Socio-Scientific Reasoning about Socio-Hydrologic Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About