Environmental Literacy
Research Group
LEARNING PROGRESSIONS TOWARD
ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY
Charles W. Anderson, Ajay Sharma, Lindsey Mohan,
In-Young Cho, Hui Jin, Christopher D. Wilson,
John Lockhart, Blakely Tsurusaki
Richard Duschl, Discussant
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in
Science Teaching,
San Francisco, April 3-6, 2006
This research is supported in part by three grants from the
National Science Foundation: Developing a research-based
learning progression for the role of carbon in environmental
systems (REC 0529636), the Center for Curriculum Materials in
Science (ESI-0227557) and Long-term Ecological Research in
Row-crop Agriculture (DEB 0423627. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the National Science Foundation.
CCMS
PARTNERS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Mark Wilson, Karen Draney, University of
California, Berkeley
Joe Krajcik. Phil Piety, University of
Michigan
Brian Reiser, Northwestern University
Jo Ellen Roseman, AAAS Project 2061
Long Term Ecological Research (LTER)
Network








Alan Berkowitz, Baltimore Ecosystem Study
Ali Whitmer, Santa Barbara Coastal
John Moore, Shortgrass Steppe
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
ORDER OF PAPERS
Introduction and overview: Charles W. Anderson
Paper 1: Understanding of matter transformations in physical
and chemical changes, By In-Young Cho and Charles W.
Anderson
Paper 2: Developing a Carbon Cycle Learning Progression for
K-12, By Lindsey Mohan, Ajay Sharma, In-Young Cho, Hui
Jin, and Charles W. Anderson
Paper 3: Diversity and Evolution in Environmental Systems, By
Chris Wilson, John Lockhart, and Charles W. Anderson
Paper 4: Connecting Personal Actions to Environmental
Systems, By Blakely K. Tsurusaki and Charles W. Anderson
Common Themes and Implications: Charles W. Anderson
Discussion: Richard Duschl, Rutgers University
Website: http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/index.htm
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
INTRODUCTION and OVERVIEW
Charles W. Anderson
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CONVERGING TRENDS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group

Science education policy: Critiques of
standards

Science: Interdisciplinary Research on
Coupled Human and Natural Systems

Citizenship: Increasing environmental
responsibility

Science education research: Learning
Progressions as an Approach to Research
Synthesis
CRITIQUES OF STANDARDS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 Traditionalist critique (e.g., Fordham Foundation,
California standards)
 Too much philosophy, psychology, inquiry
 Not enough rigorous science content
 Science education critique (e.g., us)
 Need to consider changing needs for citizens’
knowledge
 Too many benchmarks: Need to reduce and reorganize
around Big Ideas
 Need to consider advances in educational research
(including learning progressions)
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
SCIENCE: Interdisciplinary Research on
Coupled Human and Natural Systems

Shift from individual disciplines (ecology,
geology, atmospheric science,
meteorology) to interdisciplinary fields
(environmental science, earth systems
science)

Shift from focus on natural systems to
coupled human and natural systems

Shift from retrospective (reconstructing
the past) to prospective (projecting the
future)
RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP and
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LITERACY
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 The world is changing as human impacts on the
environment increase
 Citizens need to consider environmental consequences or
sustainability in concert with other democratic values:
freedom, opportunity, justice
 Actions and decisions in multiple roles that all citizens play:
learners, consumers, voters, workers, volunteers, and
advocates
 Environmental science literacy is the ability to
 Enact personal agency with respect to environmental issues
 Understand and evaluate arguments among experts
 Reconcile actions or policies with values
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
PRACTICES for ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE LITERACY
1. Inquiry: Learning from experience (not addressed in these
papers)


Practical and scientific inquiry
Developing arguments from evidence
2 and 3. Scientific accounts and applications: Learning from
authorities


Applying fundamental principles to processes in
systems
Using scientific models and patterns to explain and
predict
4. Using scientific reasoning in responsible citizenship:
Reconciling experience, authority, and values



Enacting personal agency on environmental issues
Reconciling actions or policies with values
Understanding and evaluating arguments among
experts
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ACCOUNTS
and APPLICATIONS
Applying fundamental
principles…
 Structure of systems:
nanoscopic, microscopic,
macroscopic, large scale
 Constraints on processes:
tracing matter, energy,
information
 Change over time:
evolution, multiple causes,
feedback loops
…to processes in coupled
human and natural
systems
 Earth systems:
Geosphere, hydrosphere,
atmosphere
 Living systems:
Producers, consumers,
decomposers
 Engineered systems:
Food, water, energy,
transportation, housing
RESEARCH GOALS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
LEARNING PROGRESSIONS as an APPROACH
to RESEARCH SYNTHESIS

Synthesizing research around key practices
and themes or Big Ideas

Using short-term studies to investigate
long-term learning

Connecting research, policy, and practice
RESEARCH PRODUCTS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 A research-based learning progression for
environmental literacy topics. This learning
progression will include:
– A review of research on student learning relevant to that topic
– Results of our research on student learning, including what we have
learned from pretests and posttests
– A suggested successional description of students’ learning: a
series of steps by which elementary, middle, and high school students
can work toward mastery of the learning goals for high school
graduates.
 Assessment tests for K-12 students
METHODS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 Data sources
– Volunteer teachers in working groups
– Tests administered to upper elementary, middle, and high school
students (available on website)
 Data analysis
– Developing rubrics for open-response questions
– Searching for patterns and common themes within and across
tests
 Patterns in accounts of environmental systems (Practices 2 and 3)
 Patterns in reconciling experience, authority, and values (Practice 4)
– Looking for developmental trends
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
STUDENTS’ IDEAS OF MATTER TRANSFORMATION
IN PHYSICAL AND CHEMICICAL CHANGES:
ECOLOGICAL THINKING
In-Young Cho and Charles W. Anderson
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DATA and ANALYSIS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Data Sources
 40 students in grade 10 - general and AP chemistry
 40 students in grade 10 - International Baccalaureate program
 “Physical and Chemical Change” assessment of 12 written
questionnaires
 development of rubric and working paper
Data Analysis
 Matter transformations in physical & chemical changes
 Concept relations in students’ ecological thinking of scientific
principles of environmental systems
 Phenomenological categories for concept relations
 Construction of issues in students’ ecological thinking about
matter transformations in environmental systems
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Applying fundamental
principles…
 Structure of systems: Atomicmolecular and macroscopic
 Constraints on processes:
-Tracing matter: mass,
substances, elements,
molecules, atoms
-Tracing energy
…to processes in
coupled human
and natural
systems
 Sublimating iodine
 Burning wood
 Losing weight
SUBLIMATING IODINE
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
1. A 1-gram sample of solid iodine is placed in a tube and
the tube is sealed after all of the air is removed. The
tube and the solid iodine together weigh 27 grams.
Iodine Solid
The tube is then heated until all of the iodine
evaporates and the tube is filled with iodine gas. Will
the weight after heating be:
a. less than 26 grams.
b. 26 grams.
c. between 26 and 27 grams.
d. 27 grams.
e. more than 27 grams.
2. What is the reason for your answer to question 1?
CHANGE OF STATE
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Sublimating iodine question
47.5
the same
52.5
weigh less
0
weigh more
0
20
40
60
80
% of students
 “Because going from a solid to a gas, it weighs less”
 “Because of the law of conservation of mass”
100
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group

In physical change, more than half of the
students didn’t conserve the mass of gas.

Even in a closed system, gas is thought to
weigh less than a solid.
BURING WOOD
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
True or false? When a piece of wood burns, some
of the matter is destroyed.
What is the reason for your answer?
True: 17.5%
False: 82.5%
 “Isn’t there a law that says matter is neither lost nor
created? So I’m thinking it’s just transfer into gas and
ash” (unspecified gas)
 “it is changed to other states/forms such as ash and
smoke” (ashes and smoke)
 “when you’re burning, you’re chemically destroying. So
some matter must be destroyed” (destroys matter)
 “the wood isn’t changing chemically, just physically”
(phase change)
COMBUSTION
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Burning Wood question
tracing CO2 and H2O
1.25
unspecified gases
5
ashes and smoke
37.5
conservation of mass
36.25
2.5
converted into energy
phase change
7.5
8.75
destroys matter
0
20
40
60
% of students
80
100
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group





When a gas is involved in a chemical change as a
reactant/product in open systems, added/emitted mass
of gas is ignored
In open systems, students often failed to trace the
pathway of gases and failed to give them chemical
identities
Asserting the law of conservation of mass without
accompanying explanation
Chemical change is not considered as a process of
atomic rearrangement but as a simple change of
matter form
Atomic-molecular reasoning is limited and heavily
context-dependent (e.g. compare to losing weight
question)
LOSING WEIGHT
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
A person on a diet lost 20 pounds.
Some of his fat is gone. What
happened to the mass of the fat?





“It was used for energy” (conversion to
energy)
“It was transferred elsewhere and released
from the body, sweat, etc.” (water and waste
materials)
“It was burned away, it went away” (simple
subtraction)
“The mass of the fat stayed the same”
(conservation of mass)
“The fat cells in the person’s body shrank”
(other)
CELLULAR RESPIRATION
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Weight Loss question
conversion to energy
35.5
water and waste materials
6.25
conservation of mass
7.5
simple subtraction
26.25
other
23.75
0
20
40
60
% of students
80
100
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group

The gas products in the chemical reactions of cellular
respiration are not traced; the conservation of mass is
only stated technically.

The context of fat burning gives the idea of energy
production, the process of chemical reactions of
cellular respiration was not traced.

Students knew fat burning is a breaking down of fat,
but didn’t trace it to a chemical process of oxidation
into CO2 and H2O
MATTER TRANSFORMATIONS in
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 About half of the students had no commitment to
conservation of mass in changes involving gases
 The other half of the students showed a
commitment to the principle, but were unable to
apply it to more complex chemical changes
 They had problems with understanding systems:
- difficulties in identifying reactants and products
- matter-energy conversions
- inability to use atomic-molecular models
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
DEVELOPING A CARBON CYCLE LEARNING
PROGRESSION FOR K-12
Lindsey Mohan, Ajay Sharma, In-Young Cho, Hui Jin, and
Charles W. Anderson
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DATA SOURCES and ANALYSIS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Data Sources


120 total assessments
- 40 elementary school (3rd & 4th grade)
- 40 middle school (6th & 8th grade)
- 40 high school (biology classes)
Items focused on the role of carbon in:
producers, consumers, decomposers, humanenergy systems, physical & chemical change,
and carbon pools & fluxes
Data Analysis

Rubrics developed to capture patterns in
responses
- Reliability checks and revision of rubrics
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Applying fundamental
principles…
 Structure of systems:
– atomic-molecular (CO2 and
organic materials),
– single-celled and multicellular
organisms (producers, consumers,
decomposers),
– ecosystems
 Constraints on processes:
– Tracing matter: inorganic to
organic forms
…to processes in
coupled human
and natural
systems
 Amazon tree growth
 Decomposition of
apple
 Food chain
 Preserving forests
On March 10, 2004, National Public Radio reported that “forests in a remote
part of the Amazon are suddenly growing like teenagers in a growth
spurt.” Scientists have speculated that our actions may have caused
this phenomenon. What do you think could be the scientific basis
behind such a speculation?
Burning of fossil
fuels/CO2
Warmer
temperatures
Lack of pollution
High (Class 1)
High (Class 2)
Humans directly
influencing
Natural Cause
Other
I Don't Know or
No Response
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percentage
25%
30%
35%
CONNECTING AMAZON GROWTH
to FOSSIL FUELS
Microscopic and Large Scale accounts
 25% focused on microscopic scale (“maybe there are more
minerals for the trees to grow”)
 12.5% focused on large scale (“lack of pollution from business”)
Tracing carbon across from inorganic to organic forms
 0%-related to elevated level of CO2 in atmosphere (combustion to
photosynthesis)
Direct versus indirect influences from humans
 38%-humans are directly influencing growth
 “Naturally, trees would not suddenly have grown an incredibly
drastic amount in just a year…you must believe that man-made
influences caused it. Possibilities are controlled burns, soil that has
been removed or changed to stimulate crop rotation, or even
particles in rainwater or chemical substances.”
WHEN AN APPLE IS LEFT OUTSIDE FOR A LONG
TIME, IT ROTS. WHAT CAUSES THE APPLE TO ROT?
Trace matter through decomposition
Mention microbes
"Visible" factors (water, heat, sun)
Elementary
Oxygen causes rotting
Middle
High
Apple is deprived of necessities
Apple rots from inside
Other
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage
Students become increasingly more aware that decomposers are involved,
but do not trace matter through the process.
EXPLAIN HOW THE FOLLOWING LIVING THINGS
CONNECT WITH EACH OTHER: GRASS, COWS,
HUMAN BEINGS, DECOMPOSING BACTERIA
Trace
Matter/Energy
Food Chain
Elementary
Middle
All Live/Grow
I Don't Know
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percentage
Student Response: “the grass is eaten by the cow and becomes
energy and the cow is eaten by humans and all these things die
and are decomposed.”
EXPLAIN WHY IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO
PRESERVE OUR FORESTS
Trees us CO2
Trees provide something for humans
and animals
Elementary
Trees provide something for humans
Middle
Trees provide something for animals
I Don't Know or No response
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percentage
 Middle school students more often mention connection between humans and
O2 from plants and less explanations including animals
 Limited understanding of the role of plants in the ecological carbon cycle
KEY FINDINGS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group

Students primarily reason at macroscopic level;
Reasoning at microscopic scale and large scale is
more common in explanations from older
students, but very limited.

Students do not trace matter from organic to
inorganic forms (e.g., decomposition).

Students view living systems as connected by
having things in common or being part of a food
chain, but not by tracing matter and energy.

Students make environmental decisions based on
needs of humans and animals.
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
DIVERSITY AND EVOLUTION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Christopher D. Wilson, John Lockhart and
Charles W. Anderson
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DATA SOURCES
Environmental Literacy
Research Group

Two high school classes (n=30)
- Biology and Zoology

One middle school class (n=30)

Two elementary classes (n=30)
EVOLUTION, DIVERSITY and
ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 Diversity in natural systems at different levels
 Natural systems change over time in response to
environmental conditions.
 Human impact on the environment is increasingly
directing the way systems change.
Sex and Mutation:
Diversity
Selection:
Diversity
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Applying fundamental principles…
 Structure of systems:
– Alleles, genes, traits, organisms,
populations, species, communities
and ecosystems
– Diversity at multiple levels
 Constraints on processes:
– Connections between systems
– Tracing information: individual life
cycles, population structures
 Change over time:
– Modeling the mechanisms governing
the connections
– Evolution as changes in population
size and structure
– Human effects on biodiversity
…to processes in
coupled human and
natural systems
 Structure of
strawberry
populations
 Structure of fish
populations
 Evolutionary change
in cheetahs
 Survival of elephant
populations
STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
String Instruments
Wind Instruments
Woodwind
Plucked
Percussion
Brass
Bowed
Metallic
Flutes
Harps
Skinned
Clarinets
Guitars
Cymbals
Violins
Bells
Cellos
Trumpets
Saxophones
Drums Tambourines
Starting with “All Living Things . . .”
STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS
Musical Instruments Item
Producers
Consumers
Decomposers
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Musical Instruments Item
Producers
Consumers
Decomposers
High
Comsumers
Producers
Decomposers
Middle
Elementary
0
20
40
60
% of students
80
100
STRUCTURE OF SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Fish Item
Structure of individuals
within a population
From Elementary:
Fish are all Identical
To Secondary:
Significant Differences
(but no mechanism)
e.g. “It is a proven fact that no two organisms look exactly
alike and act the same”
PROCESSES THAT CONNECT SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Strawberry Item A.
Why don’t the
strawberries look
identical?
PROCESSES THAT CONNECT SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Strawberry Item A.
Why don’t the
strawberries look
identical?
High
Genetic variation as
the cause of
phenotypic variation
Environmental
variation as the cause
of phenotypic variation
Middle
Elementary
0
20
40
60
80
% of students
100
PROCESSES THAT CONNECT SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Strawberry Item B.
Explaining the difference in
diversity between wild and
supermarket strawberries
(connecting human and
natural systems).
 ~50% of students mentioned some sort of human
influence.
 Vague perceptions of what that influence was.
 Lacking understanding of the mechanisms of how
humans influence diversity.
 Invisible connections between human and natural
systems.
CHANGE OVER TIME
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Cheetah Item
20mph
60mph
Model-Based Reasoning
 Individuals in a population are not identical, but vary in
many characteristics.
 Survival is not random, certain traits provide an advantage.
 Populations change over time as the frequency of
advantageous alleles / traits increases.
CHANGE OVER TIME
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Cheetah Item
Teleological
misconceptions
Lamarckian
misconceptions
Scientific
explanation
57
26
High
Middle
13
0
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of students
 No students used the rules of the model in constructing their
explanation – instead they focused on narratives.
 High School students saw the need for a mechanism, but because
part of the model was invisible to them (genetic variation in
populations), like Lamarck, they picked the wrong one.
CHANGE OVER TIME
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Elephant Item
2 populations of elephants.
Elephants in Population A
are all slightly different,
Population B are all identical.
Which of the two populations do you think is most likely
to survive if there was a severe drought?
Rules of the model:
 Individuals in a population are not identical, but vary in many characteristics.
 Survival is not random, certain traits provide an advantage.
 Population level genetic variation is the raw material of natural selection.
CHANGE OVER TIME
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Elephant Item
Equal Chance of Surviving
High
Middle
Population B (Not Diverse)
Population A (Diverse)
0
20
40
60
80
% of students
100
 Although most students chose Popn A, very few used scientific models.
 Students reasoned in ways that made sense to them, but which were
incompatible with scientific thought.
 Reliance on narratives, often anthropomorphic and human society-based.
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
DIMENSIONS of the
LEARNING PROGRESSION
 From Disconnected Systems to Coupled
Human and Natural systems.
 From Informal / Metaphorical to Model Based
Reasoning.
 From Invisible to Visible systems and
connections.
 Evolution as Prescriptive, not just Descriptive.
 Towards responsible citizenship
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
CONNECTING PERSONAL ACTIONS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Blakely K. Tsurusaki and Charles W. Anderson
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DATA SOURCES
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Three high school classes (n=44)
- 9th and 10th grade
- Biology, Physical Science, Earth Science
One middle school class (n=26)
- 6th grade
One elementary class (n=34)
- 4th grade
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES and SYSTEMS
Applying fundamental
principles…
 Structure of systems:
– Macroscopic (food, appliances,
plumbing in house, etc.) and largescale (food, water, waste disposal)
engineered systems
– Connections between engineered
and natural systems
 Constraints on processes:
– Tracing matter through supply
chains and waste disposal chains
– Tracing energy through
engineered systems
…to processes in
coupled human
and natural
systems
 Hamburger supply
chain
 Paper cup waste
disposal chain
 Global warming
CONNECTING HUMAN ACTIONS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
 Consumers of essential goods and services, including
food, clothing, shelter, air, water, and transportation.
 Goods and services in each of these categories pass
through a number of environmental systems on
their way to us (the supply chain) and go through
additional systems after we are done with them
(waste disposal).
 The human systems that supply all of our essential goods
and services begin and end in the earth’s natural
systems.
PRETEST QUESTIONS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group





Supply and waste disposal chains hamburger meat, paper cup, water
Resources used and impact of
resources
Global Warming/Global Climate
Change
Preservation of environment
Biodiversity and evolution
WHERE DOES YOUR HAMBURGER MEAT
COME FROM?
100
80
60
40
20
Student Response
ts
an
Pl
w
Co
us
e
ht
er
ho
ug
Bu
Sl
a
Tr
an
tc
he
r
0
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Percentage of Students
Hamburger Supply Chain
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
High n=44
**No mention of feedlots
NUMBER OF STEPS IN HAMBURGER
SUPPLY CHAIN
Percentage of Students
70
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
60
High n=44
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 7
Number of Steps
 High school students mention more steps than middle or
elementary school students
 Same results in paper cup waste disposal chain
CONNECTIONS
Could there be any connection
between hamburger meat and a
corn field in Iowa?
Could there be any connection
between a paper cup and a tree?
Could there be any connection between
hamburger meat and a corn field in Iowa?
90
Percentage of Students
80
70
60
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
High n=44
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Student
Studentresponses
Response
• Most high school and middle
school students think that there
IS a connection between
hamburger meat and a corn
field
• Most elementary students think
that there IS NOT a connection
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of
Students
100
Could there be a connection between a paper cup and
a tree?
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
High n=44
Yes
StudentResponse
responses
Student
No
• Almost all students think
there IS a connection
between a paper cup and a
tree
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
2B. Explain why you think hamburger and corn could or
could not be connected
2A
Characteristics of
Response student answers
Elem (%) Middle
High (%)
n=34
(%) n=26 n=44
Yes
Mentions why cows
might eat corn;
specifically relate eating
corn to growth of cow
0
3.8
4.5
Yes
Cows eat corn
2.9
46.2
52.3
Yes
Cows and corn field on
same farm
20.6
15.4
13.6
No
Corn and hamburger
different
38.2
3.8
13.6
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
SUPPLY and WASTE DISPOSAL CHAINS




Sequence of actors and places, as
opposed to transformation of matter and
energy
Supply chain as small-scale rural
production on family farms rather than largescale industrial beef production
High school students mention more steps
than middle or elementary school students
High school students give more detailed
explanations for connections between
hamburger meat and corn fields and paper
cups and trees (e.g., some mention
transformation of matter)
GLOBAL WARMING
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Have you ever heard of global warming?
120
Percentage of Students
• Most middle and
high school
students HAVE
heard of global
warming
• Most elementary
students HAVE
NOT heard of
global warming
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ye s
No
Student Response
Student responses
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
High n=44
CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING
30
Percentage of Students
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
Causes of global warming
25
20
15
10
5
0
Greenhouse
gases
Land use
Aerosols/C FC s Ozone layer
Student
Response
Student
responses
C ars
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
High n=44
*Mention origin/by-products, not processes
WAYS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING
Ways to reduce global warming
Percentage of Students
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fossil fuels
Land Use Aerosols/CFCs
Car use
Elementary n=34
Middle n=26
High n=44
Student Responses
Can’t be
reduced
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
KEY FINDINGS
Learning progression
 Actors and locations - number and
type
 Tracing matter and energy connections
 Transformation of matter and energy
 Infrastructure and by-products
 Scientific reasoning necessary for
responsible citizenship
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
COMMON THEMES and IMPLICATIONS
Charles W. Anderson
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
PRACTICES 2 and 3: SCIENTIFIC ACCOUNTS
and their APPLICATIONS
 From stories to model-based accounts
– Shift from why to how--purposes to mechanisms
– BUT lack knowledge of critical parts of systems
 From macroscopic to hierarchy of systems
– Increased awareness of atomic-molecular and large-scale systems
– BUT little success in connecting accounts at different levels
 Increasing awareness of constraints on systems
– Increasing awareness of conservation laws
– BUT rarely successful in constraint-based reasoning
 Increasing awareness of “invisible” parts of systems
– Increasing detail and complexity
– BUT gases, decomposers, connections between human and
natural systems remain “invisible”
PRACTICE 4: USING SCIENTIFIC REASONING
for RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP
 Enacting personal agency on environmental issues
– Limited individual agency or responsibility
 Understanding and evaluating arguments among
experts
– Reliance on media and personal experience
– Unidirectional connections between human and
natural systems
– Limited awareness of comparative scale of
processes.
 Reconciling actions or policies with values
– Generalized good and bad
TO DO LIST
Environmental Literacy
Research Group




Systematic review of literature
Better assessments
- for inquiry (Practice 1)
- for applications to citizenship (Practice 4)
- Psychometric quality (BEAR assessment
system)
Understanding pre-model-based
reasoning in elementary students (and all
of us)
- Embodied reasoning and inquiry
- Storytelling and scientific accounts
Teaching experiments at upper elementary,
middle school, and high school levels
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
MORE INFORMATION
Papers, Tests, and Other Materials are
Available on Our Website:
http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/index.htm
Environmental Literacy
Research Group
DISCUSSION
Richard Duschl, Rutgers University
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY