National Geoscience Faculty Survey 2016: Prevalence of systems thinking and scientific modeling learning opportunities

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

“…Students may have relied on experiences to identify components of the system, and they may have had fewer experiences with the mechanisms and phenomena of the system; thus leading to fewer mechanisms and phenomena in their drawn models. Study findings also suggest that students need more practice both drawing and describing systems thinking models, opportunities that may not be commonplace in undergraduate geoscience courses [27]. Specific curriculum and instruction to support growth in reasoning about the complexities and interactions between water systems are needed to help students develop ideas about their application to daily lives [7,8,17].…”

“…Students need opportunities to develop systems thinking in formal classroom contexts. However, although systems thinking is a critical outcome for students, research has shown that it is arguably underemphasized in undergraduate geoscience courses [27] and, even when it is emphasized, students often struggle to engage in this practice productively [11,[28][29][30]. However, there are many ways in which formal learning environments can be designed to support students' developing systems thinking abilities.…”

The relationship between active learning, course innovation, and teaching Earth systems thinking: A structural equation modeling approach

“…The survey included nine items written to address systems thinking skills (Table 1), which we analyzed in a Note: Participants were given the prompt "Are there elements in your course that enable your students to:" , and for each item, they could either select yes (coded 1) or select no answer (coded 0). previous study (Lally et al, 2019). However, based on the work of Scherer et al (2017), it was clear that these only addressed the frameworks of Earth Systems Thinking Skills and Complexity Sciences.…”

“…Scherer et al's (2017) literature review on EST in geoscience education foregrounded four conceptual frameworks supported by empirical research. The purpose of our study was to investigate these frameworks for EST and examine the current state of EST teaching by geoscience faculty members using data from the 2016 National Geoscience Faculty Survey (Lally et al, 2019;Manduca et al, 2017;Macdonald et al, 2005). Specifically, we sought to better understand how EST teaching, innovative teaching (i.e., active learning; Bonwell and Eison, 1991), and course innovation (EST teaching changes) are related to each other.…”

“…The target audience was instructors teaching college-level geoscience courses. The survey was refined with multiple iterations (discussed below), and for this study, the 2016 results were used (Manduca et al, 2017;Macdonald et al, 2005;Lally et al, 2019). The sampling frame for 2016 was composed of the following lists of geoscience faculty: the American Geosciences Institute membership list obtained with permission for this use (AGI; Alexandria, Virginia, USA, https://www.americangeosciences.org); the On the Cutting Edge professional development program participant list obtained with permission from the PIs; a list of faculty at Texas Two-Year Colleges generated from public websites of two-year colleges; the Supporting and Advancing Geoscience Education at Two-Year Colleges (SAGE2YC) list obtained with permission from the PIs; an additional set of On the Cutting Edge participants specific to the Early Career workshop obtained with permission from the PIs; a Geosciences Two-Year Colleges list composed of instructors from two-year colleges generated from public institutional websites with guidance from regional contacts in New York, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington State, Idaho, and Illinois; and a list of atmospheric science faculty generated from public institutional websites linked from the American Meteorological Society website.…”