Model Based Reasoning by Introductory Students
When Analyzing Earth Systems and Societal Challenges
Lauren Holder (lnholder@tamu.edu), Bruce Herbert (herbert@geo.tamu.edu)
Department of Geology & Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Abstract
Instructional Design and Activities and Rubric
Understanding how students use their conceptual models to
reason about societal challenges involving societal issues such
as natural hazard risk assessment, environmental policy and
management, and energy resources can improve instructional
activity design. This can improve student motivation and earth
science literacy. To address questions of student conceptual
modeling, we created four laboratory exercises for introductory
physical geology using situated cognition theory that engages
students in authentic scientific practices and design within the
context of significant sociotechnical issues facing society. Our
case-study design allows us to investigate the various ways
that students utilize model based reasoning to identify and
propose solutions to societally relevant issues.
Student
reviews
material
from
laboratory
manual
prior to
class
Quiz on
material
Short
introduction
to topic
(PowerPoint)
Student
interpret
and graph
data
Graphing Data
Student
draws/writes
conceptual
model
Student answers
societally relevant
questions or
suggests
solutions to
societal grand
challenges
Rubric Exploratory Analysis
Time and Scale (3 points)
Time and Scale (1 point)
Interpreting Data
System Processes (3 points)
Science, Technology, and Society
System Processes (1 point)
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Mental Model
Model Based
Reasoning
Conceptual Model
Problem solving through Design
STS Issues
Emotional
Ideologies
Naïve
Conceptions
Place-Based Learning with Authentic Data
“Building students’ appreciation for the integration of
science, technology, and society is based on the problems
and situations that they examine or experience both inside
and outside of the classroom” (College Board).
Anecdotal
Evidence
•
A
Evidence Based Claims
2 points
Rubric
Category
3 points
2 points
1 point
Explanation
of System
Processes
Successfully identifies and
separates processes,
mechanisms, and components
of a system. Identifies and
explains relationships between
processes and components.
Student can identify
processes, mechanisms,
or components of the
system but not all.
Students model may identify Student does not complete
one process, mechanism, or model.
component of the system.
Explanation
of Scale and
Time
Identify and explain
relationships, processes, and
characteristics that change over
time, can be cyclical in nature,
and differ with respect to space,
size, and location (when
applicable).
The student addresses
both scale and time, but
does not completely
explore changes in space,
size, location
The model displays
incorrect, poorly drawn, or
naive conceptions about
scale and time for
processes and
characteristics in the
system or does not
address either scale or
time.
Student does not complete
model or does not show
changes in scale or time
for processes or
characteristics in the
system.
Model
Justifications
Student uses evidence in their
model and correct terminology
and concepts.
The student uses
adequate evidence in their
model; however, the
student may use incorrect
terminology and may
demonstrate naïve
conceptions about the
system.
The student does not draw
a model or does not use
evidence in their model or
demonstrate any
understanding of the
material including a lack of
terminology.
EvidenceBased
Claims
The student uses evidencebased claims from the
conceptual model or other parts
of the laboratory to answer
societally relevant policy,
management decisions, or grand
challenges. Anecdotal evidence
and emotional ideologies are
kept to a minimum.
The student uses
evidence-based claims
from the conceptual model
or other parts of the
laboratory, but uses
considerable anecdotal
evidence and emotional
ideologies to solve grand
challenges.
The student relies heavily
on prior knowledge or past
experiences, but still uses
some evidence in their
model. The student may
also demonstrate naïve
conceptions, incorrect
terminology, and incorrect
assumptions.
The student does not use
evidence-based claims
and instead uses
anecdotal evidence and
emotional ideologies.
1 point
0 points
The student does not
answer any question
regarding societal issues
or grand challenges.
References
Assaraf, Orit Ben‐Zvi, and Nir Orion. "Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system
education." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42.5 (2005): 518-560.
College Board (2009) Science: College Board Standards for Student Success
https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-standards-2009.pdf
Fichter, Lynn S., E. J. Pyle, and S. J. Whitmeyer. "Strategies and Rubrics for Teaching Chaos and
Complex Systems Theories as Elaborating, Self-Organizing, and Fractionating Evolutionary
Systems." Journal of Geoscience Education 58.2 (2010): 65-85.
Herbert, Bruce E. "Student understanding of complex earth systems." Geological Society of America
Special Papers 413 (2006): 95-104.
McNeal, K. S., Miller, H. R., & Herbert, B. E. (2008). The effect of using inquiry and multiple
representations on introductory geology students' conceptual model development of coastal
eutrophication. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(3) 201.
Acknowledgement
Adapted From Herbert 2005, Fichter et al, 2010,
McNeal et al 2008, and Assaraf and Orion 2005
Thank you to the TAMU Geology Department for letting me experiment on your students,
and thank you to Dr. Bruce Herbert for all of your wonderful ideas.