The Value of Conceptual Models in Coping with Complexity and Interdisciplinarity in Environmental Sciences Education

Abstract

Conceptual models are useful for facing the challenges of environmental sciences curriculum and course developers and students. These challenges are inherent to the interdisciplinary and problem-oriented character of environmental sciences curricula. In this article, we review the merits of conceptual models in facing these challenges. These models are valuable because they can be used to (a) improve the coherence and focus of an environmental sciences curriculum, (b) analyze environmental issues and integrate knowledge, (c) examine and guide the process of environmental research and problem solving, and (d) examine and guide the integration of knowledge in the environmental-research and problem-solving processes. We advocate the use of various conceptual models in environmental sciences education. By applying and reflecting on these models, students start to recognize the complexity of human-environment systems, to appreciate the various approaches to framing environmental problems, and to comprehend the role of science in dealing with these problems.

The stream evolution triangle: Integrating geology, hydrology, and biology

“…Conceptual models are “thinking tools,” and the best outcome of a conceptual model is not a precise answer but deeper thinking. According to Fortuin et al (), conceptual models help to “structure, retrieve, and construct knowledge, which thereby substantially improves the learning process.”…”

“…The stream evolution triangle (SET) is a conceptual model that blends long‐established principles of fluvial geomorphology with results emerging from recent research revealing the high degree to which biological agents affect stream processes and systems (Atkinson, Allen, Davis, & Nickerson, ; McCluney et al, ). Conceptual models are useful when attempting to integrate information from natural science disciplines in order to understand complex systems (Fortuin, van Koppen, & Leemans, ) and are consequently well‐suited to fluvial systems. With the SET, we attempt to create a conceptual space inclusive enough to represent wide ranges of process drivers, stream forms, and evolutionary pathways but simple enough to allow for creative thinking and rapid evaluation of both established and new ideas (Jackson, Trebitz, & Cottingham, ).…”

On ideas of evolution and the evolution of ideas: communicating traditions of scientific enquiry

“…Even a cursory appreciation of how claims to knowledge and understanding are fashioned and defended by (often implicit) reference to wider frames of social and cultural reference provides an important starting point for learning about scientific method and the relationships between science and society and between scientific disciplines. Whilst the fact that the world's problems do not come in disciplinary shaped boxes is now widely recognised, the learning of skills and competencies to underpin interdisciplinary investigation is dependent on a deep appreciation of the natures and roles of science (Fortuin et al, 2011). Awareness of, and the ability to interpret and manipulate, the central tenets of theories and allied methods is a critical tool in the search for accommodation between different perspectives or approaches.…”

Baltic Herring Fisheries Management: Stakeholder Views to Frame the Problem

“…Techniques such as conceptual content cognitive maps (Austin 1994, Kearney andKaplan 1997); Actors, Resources, Dynamics, and Interactions (ARDI; Etienne et al 2011), fuzzy cognitive mapping (Özesmi and Özesmi 2004), and various others have been used in participatory processes that elicit stakeholders' mental models (Fortuin et al 2011, Jones et al 2011. All provide tools to structure and communicate complex issues, to recognize various perspectives, and to help build shared understanding.…”

“…All provide tools to structure and communicate complex issues, to recognize various perspectives, and to help build shared understanding. They also have potential to guide environmental research processes and problem solving and to integrate different types of knowledge (Hukkinen 1993, Pavao-Zuckerman 2000, Heemskerk et al 2003, Fortuin et al 2011, Jones et al 2011.…”