Research and Teaching: Undergraduate Students' Scientifically Informed Decision Making About Socio-Hydrological Issues

Sabel, Jaime L.; Vo, Tina; Alred, Ashley; Dauer, Jenny M.; Forbes, Cory T.

doi:10.2505/4/jcst17_046_06_71

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though somewhat limited in the literature, both of these represent key progressions of understanding that can link the natural/physical science and systems of water to human actions in a reflexive way. For example, Sabel et al [62] suggest that college students' difficulties with core hydrological concepts may contribute to findings that students are challenged to provide scientific support for decisions about socio-hydrological issues and to link these to hypothetical voting scenarios.…”

Section: Student Science and Systems Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

What We Know about Water: A Water Literacy Review

McCarroll

Hamann

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water literacy, or the culmination of water-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, is a relatively new field of study with growing importance for sustainable water management and social water equity. However, its definition and use across existing literature are varied and often inconsistent. This paper seeks to synthesize and streamline the conception of water literacy. We conducted a systematic review of literature that defines or describes in detail either “water literacy” or “watershed literacy”. From this, we suggest a new holistic framework for water literacy to guide a more inclusive, relevant use of the concept. We utilized the framework to examine existing surveys and studies of water knowledge, attitudes and behaviors in both student and adult populations, and summarized water literacy levels and knowledge gaps that exist around the world. To address knowledge gaps, we suggest using a suite of approaches drawn from the published literature, including enhanced visuals, place-based learning, interdisciplinary curricula, and reflective and iterative development of future water literacy initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Student Science and Systems Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

What We Know about Water: A Water Literacy Review

McCarroll

Hamann

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, findings indicated that as students provided more thorough descriptions of the ways in which their model was limited, their overall written assignment score increased. These findings surrounding evaluation contributed to a wider body of teaching and learning work in water education across the K-16 continuum [6,12,23,26]. The ability to critique one's work highlights the following constraints: mental, physical, and temporal, all of which contribute to the final product [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sociohydrologic systems (SHS), are water systems that include both human and natural dimensions. However, research has shown students are challenged by reasoning about both natural and human dimensions of SHS (e.g., [4][5][6][7][8][9]). To support students' systems thinking about SHS, we developed and implemented a new interdisciplinary undergraduate course.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lally

Forbes

2020

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the keys to science and environmental literacy is systems thinking. Learning how to think about the interactions between systems, the far-reaching effects of a system, and the dynamic nature of systems are all critical outcomes of science learning. However, students need support to develop systems thinking skills in undergraduate geoscience classrooms. While systems thinking-focused instruction has the potential to benefit student learning, gaps exist in our understanding of students’ use of systems thinking to operationalize and model SHS, as well as their metacognitive evaluation of systems thinking. To address this need, we have designed, implemented, refined, and studied an introductory-level, interdisciplinary course focused on coupled human-water, or sociohydrologic, systems. Data for this study comes from three consecutive iterations of the course and involves student models and explanations for a socio-hydrologic issue (n = 163). To analyze this data, we counted themed features of the drawn models and applied an operationalization rubric to the written responses. Analyses of the written explanations reveal statistically-significant differences between underlying categories of systems thinking (F(5, 768) = 401.6, p < 0.05). Students were best able to operationalize their systems thinking about problem identification (M = 2.22, SD = 0.73) as compared to unintended consequences (M = 1.43, SD = 1.11). Student-generated systems thinking models revealed statistically significant differences between system components, patterns, and mechanisms, F(2, 132) = 3.06, p < 0.05. Students focused most strongly on system components (M = 13.54, SD = 7.15) as compared to related processes or mechanisms. Qualitative data demonstrated three types of model limitation including scope/scale, temporal, and specific components/mechanisms/patterns excluded. These findings have implications for supporting systems thinking in undergraduate geoscience classrooms, as well as insight into links between these two skills.

show abstract

“…Understanding students’ reasoning about SHIs affords educators the opportunity to provide students with additional guidance to develop high‐quality reasoning and learn core scientific concepts (Cardak, 2009; Lederman, 2007; Surpless et al, 2014). Preparing today's students to account for the input of stakeholders, backed by awareness of their values, with the facts and knowledge of science will enable them to engage in more sophisticated decision‐making about water‐related issues in a variety of personal and professional contexts (Arvai et al, 2004; Forbes et al, 2018; Sabel et al, 2017; Bell and Lederman, 2003; Eisen et al, 2009; Gregory, 2000; Schuett et al, 2001; Wilson and Arvai, 2006), thus making them more scientifically literate global citizens who are committed to the betterment of society (Anderson et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values Use in Undergraduate Students’ Socio‐Hydrological Reasoning: A Comparative Study

Petitt

Forbes

2019

Nat. sci. educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Core Ideas Socio‐scientific issues prepare students for real‐world experiences. Socio‐hydrological reasoning involves the use of values. Value identifications differ between developing and developed countries. Value use frequency differs between developed and developing countries. Growing human populations place increasing demands on our planet, resulting in an array of challenges with both scientific and non‐scientific dimensions. These challenges are collectively known as socio‐scientific issues (SSIs). It is essential to understand how students learn to use values to reason about SSIs, particularly when dealing with water‐related challenges. This research strives to better understand undergraduate students’ reasoning to provide instructors with insights into ways to implement innovative instruction about socio‐hydrological issues. With 96% of behavioral research involving participants from developed countries, this study strives to better understand socio‐hydrologic reasoning (SHR) of students from developing countries. We investigate questions focusing on values undergraduate students from developed and developing countries identify with, how those values are used in SHR, and if reasoning differs between the two groups. Results show a significant difference between the two groups’ value identification, as well as the use of those values in their SHR. There is a significant difference in the quality of reasoning between the two groups, with students from developing countries reasoning at a higher quality than their developed country counterparts. This study begins to shed light on how students use their values to reason, which can afford educators the opportunity to provide students with the support needed to increase the quality of their reasoning.

show abstract

Research and Teaching: Undergraduate Students' Scientifically Informed Decision Making About Socio-Hydrological Issues

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

What We Know about Water: A Water Literacy Review

What We Know about Water: A Water Literacy Review

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

Values Use in Undergraduate Students’ Socio‐Hydrological Reasoning: A Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About