3
.553...
.h.. it:

suit 3.
.r

 

 

 

 

 

u

 

v13:
. 1...»

ma.
36.91:, r5

1A..“ B '1.)

2. ‘ .
'1»va

 

l . Y , .
$9....7huwuwf s3; . 331 ‘ it. 3.. . . n.
. V L .q A}; z. ‘ 1». x .53... I V , , .
. _ , . :gfififi . 1 Eng . A. V , . , ‘ wimp}?

.1<

 

THESas

Illlllillll'il llllllll'llllillllllllllllll

31293 017141270

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

The Effectiveness of Using Problem Solving
in Teaching Ecology

presented by
Kari A. Hoikka

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree inInterdepartmental
Biological Science

' ésm

 

 

Major professor

Date 29 JUIY 1998

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN
to remove this checkout fro

RETURN BOX
m your record.

before date due.

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

TO AVOID FINES return on or
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

JA‘H ,‘gqéfizqflB-

____,/ ____,___.__._ ______.___.——
_______._.___———— _____/ ___,/
_/ _________.__._..— ______..__._——

____________.—— / ______...__———
1198 magma-m.“

 

 

 

 

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF USING
PROBLEM SOLVING lN
TEACHING ECOLOGY
By

Kari A. Hoikka

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Division of Science and Mathematics Education

1 998

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF USING
PROBLEM SOLVING IN
TEACHING ECOLOGY
By

Kari A. Hoikka

The purpose of this study was to show the degree of student learning in the area
of ecology when using problem-solving techniques in teaching. During the unit
on ecology, the students were given a more active role in the development of the
unit. The students were presented with questions, then discussed the ideas
being presented and decided what notes should be taken. The students were
given problems to solve and designed their own procedures to solve the
problems. The sample population was students enrolled in my biology Classes
at Mattawan High School. A pretest consisting of an objective portion, relating to
concepts and terminology of ecology, and a subjective portion, relating to
identifying a problem and designing an experiment to solve that problem, was
administered at the beginning of the unit. The test also included three items that
allowed students to rank their own perceived abilities in the areas of ecology,
designing experiments and problem solving. The same test was administered as
a posttest. Upon comparing the pretest and the posttest results, a substantial
increase in objective scores was noted, and the data were supported by
statistical analysis using a t—test. Subjective scores showed no significant

increase.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY ................. 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 5

DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE CLASSROOM ............................................. 12
IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIT ............................................................................ 13
EVALUATION

OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 24

SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS ............................................................... 26
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 30
APPENDIX A- STUDENT/PARENT CONSENT LETTER .................................. 35
APPENDIX B- PRETESTIPOSTTEST ............................................................... 37
APPENDIX C STUDENT ACTIVITIES

APPENDIX C1-“AN ONION CONUNDRUM" ........................................... 44

APPENDIX CZ-“SOMETHING'S FISHY HERE" ...................................... 52

APPENDIX C3-“FINICKY FOWL" ............................................................ 59
APPENDIX D-STUDENT SURVEY .................................................................... 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 64

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-Average Responses on Student Survey ............................................... 28

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-Mean Test Scores by Percentage ....................................................... 25

Figure 2-Student Comments Regarding Ecology Unit ....................................... 29

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY

The problem investigated by this study was whether or not a problem-solving
approach to teaching ecology was effective. When using the terms “problem-
solving approach,” I am referring to a style of teaching in which the students take
an active role in the learning process, and they decide, to a larger extent, the
direction the lessons take. Students discover the content through questions
presented by the teacher and through questions asked by the students
themselves. This style was used in contrast to the more traditional style of
teaching, in which the lesson is dictated by the teacher, and the students, while

still involved, take a more passive role.

Mattawan High School, where this study took place, is located in the relatively
rural area of Mattawan, Michigan, and has approximately 950 students.
Students are from primarily middle class and upper-middle Class families. Most
students are Caucasian; there are less than 1% minorities at the high school.
Education is a priority among the families and students of Mattawan High
School. This is evident in the 98% graduation rate, with 85% of those graduates

going on to further their education.

Originally, when this study was planned, I was teaching science at Allegan High
School in Allegan, Michigan. At that time, the entire science department was
working to improve our students’ scores on Michigan’s High School Proficiency
Test (HSPT), especially in problem solving and constructing responses. It was
felt that although many of our students had knowledge of the topics on the
HSPT, they were having difficulty applying that knowledge. This was of great
concern to me because, although standardized tests do not always tell the whole
story, it was Clear that our students were not able to communicate what they

knew.

Other factors contributed to my choosing problem solving as a research topic.
One very influential factor was the poor work habits that l was noticing more and
more in my students. Students did not seem to know how to begin solving even
simple problems. If the answer to a question was not in writing directly in front of
them, they frequently would just give up. For example, if a student was asked a
question during a class discussion and he or she did not know the answer, the
response was usually, “I don’t know,” followed by silence. Very rarely was an
attempt made to find the answer in a textbook or even to ask questions that
might clarify what was being asked. “I don’t know,” became a far too common

response.

Another contributing factor was centered around laboratory activities. I was

finding that rather than being “investigations," many of the students were doing
“activities." The students were active participants in completing the assigned
tasks of the lab, but they did not seem to understand what they were actually
doing or why they were doing it. I felt that although students were getting the
hands-on experiences they needed, they were not getting the required elements

that would help them personalize the processes and procedures.

If students could not personalize these activities, one major purpose for doing
the activity was lost. Students would not be able to apply that knowledge to
other areas, such as life skills and career paths. In fact, the ability to analyze,
think independently and work as a member of a group to solve problems are all
employability skills that are being sought in today’s job markets (MCTighe and
Schollenberger, 1991 ). I felt that no matter what career each student chose, I
should be able to help him or her prepare for that field. Including questioning
and problem solving techniques incorporated into my courses seemed to be

beneficial.

Once it was decided that my research would be geared around problem-solving
methods of teaching, the actual topic had to be chosen. At that time, the science
department at Allegan High School was attempting to branch out in terms of
what courses were to be Offered. After Checking with the students, one topic that

was suggested as a possible semester course was ecology. I also felt that this

would be a good course to offer, and I agreed to teach the course. This posed a
great opportunity to develop my research on problem solving in the classroom
because the whole basis of ecology is the interactions of living things with their
environments and the complications that can arise in the process. Teaching

ecology through problem solving seemed to be the ideal research topic.

One complication did arise. I had just finished designing the investigations for
the new ecology class when I was hired by Mattawan Consolidated Schools to
teach biology. Although I did not have as much time to devote solely to the topic
of ecology at Mattawan High School, I was still able to apply my unit to my new

teaching assignment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The goals of using problem solving and inquiry as teaching techniques are not
based on new ideas. As early as 1896, John Dewey, a professor at the
University of Chicago, conducted studies to show that students learn best when
using their curiosity and their own experiences and when they are allowed to
take responsibility for their learning (Anderson, 1994). In the 1930's, educators
were working toward a goal of students becoming independent thinkers and
learners. The National Education Association’s Educational Policies
Commission included in its 1937 report,”...all youth need to grow in their ability
to think rationally, to express their thoughts clearly, and to read and listen with
understanding” (McTighe and Schollenberger, 1991). Although at that time
these objectives were clearly stated, a means of achieving these goals was not

known to many teachers.

Teaching strategies to achieve these objectives were developed in the 1950's
and 1960's, and continue to be revised today. The Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study was one organization to outline techniques for including
inquiry in science curricula (Chiappetta, 1997). The teaching methods proposed
at that time centered around students’ attitudes, thinking habits and reasoning
skills. The general idea of inquiry-based teaching was that, by engaging

students’ curiosities about the natural world, their learning would be increased.

These ideas seemed to wane somewhat during the 1970's when the focus of
science education instead became content. Textbooks were designed to include
as many facts as could be squeezed onto the pages, and many states published
lists of topics that should be taught in science classes. Learning processes of

science were forfeited in preference to Ieaming content.

It seemed what was actually needed was a combination of both strategies. In
order for students to be successful in Ieaming the processes of science, they
must be familiar with content terminology and concepts. Conversely, Ieaming
content is enhanced by active Ieaming procedures. An educational program that

included a blending of these methods was needed.

Fortunately, the 1980's saw a shift toward a curriculum which combined content
and processes. Two documents that were very influential in this shift were
Project 2061: Science for All Americans, which was developed by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and “Essential Changes in
Secondary School Science: Scope, Sequence and Coordination” (hereby
referred to as SS&C) by Aldridge (1989). Some goals of Project 2061 were that
schools should direct students to become Citizens who can think independently
and critically and who can deal with problems using logic. It also encouraged
educators to reduce the amount of curriculum and focus on other things, such as

making the content relevant to students’ lives outside of school (AAAS, 1997).

Aldridge supported all of these ideas and added that the curriculum should be
coordinated to show unity among all of the disciplines of science, and the
curriculum should be sequenced to match the Ieaming abilities of the students

(Anderson, 1994).

Today, many educators are working to achieve and maintain the standards set
by Project 2061 and SS&C. Before designing my ecology unit, I studied two
current models that appeared to have many positive attributes. One of these
programs was Realistic Experiences Activate Learning (REAL), which was
developed by Science and Math Investigative Learning Experiences (SMILE) at
Oregon State University (1996). The framework, designed as an enrichment
program for minority and disadvantaged students, consisted of seven steps
designed to solve problems. The processes are listed below.

1. Background knowledge

2. Problem exposition

3. Data collection

4. Data analysis

5. Data synthesis

6. Solution presentation

7. Career information

(Bloomfield, et al, 1996)

Along with basic steps of problem solving, students enrolled in REAL also
learned skills such as teamwork, creation and use of charts and graphs and

giving presentations. Student participants rated the program very highly.

The other program was problem-based Ieaming (PBL), which was initially
developed for medical schools to show medical students how to solve medical
problems. Developed by H.S. Barrows and RM. Tamblyn, PBL consists of the

following steps:

1. Problem is encountered
2. Problem is presented to student in real-life context
3. Student works to solve problem through reasoning and applying

previous knowledge

4. Students research any areas necessary

5. Information and skills acquired from research are applied to
problem

6. New Ieaming that has taken place is internalized by student for
future use

(Delisle, 1997)

Although this program was initially developed for medical schools, it is alsoa
model being used at all levels of education. The goal of this program is to make

students active learners with teachers serving as guides.

The role of the teacher in any problem-solving Classroom must change from that
currently viewed as acceptable or traditional in many schools. Traditionally. a
teacher role has been that of a marshal, controlling what is taught and how it is
taught. For many teachers, a strong sense of comfort comes from knowing what
each class of each day will bring, and it is difficult to hand over any amount of
that control. But the role of a teacher in a problem-solving classroom becomes
that of a facilitator. The teacher first must develop materials that will require
students to pose questions and design experiments to answer those questions
(Edwards, 1997). Once the materials are developed and students are working
through the problems, the teacher’s role becomes that of a guide. Guiding
students while they work on solving problems allows them to increase
independence and creativity (Delisle, 1997). Throughout the entire process
teachers can keep students engaged in active Ieaming by continuously raising
questions, posing problems and pointing out discrepancies for the students to

resolve (Costa, 1991).

The role of the student in an inquiry-based or problem-solving classroom must
change also. Traditionally, students have been passive learners, reading and
writing what they were told, memorizing facts and information and completing
“cookbook” laboratory exercises. ln problem-solving classrooms, students are
taught to take an active role. They must learn to pose direct and relevant

questions, to design experiments, to collect and analyze data, to make

presentations and to work as part of a team. The team building skills that
students develop are of universal value. Students bring together different
backgrounds and , therefore, may see different aspects of the same problem
(Delisle, 1997). In many cases, students improve their leadership skills and gain
confidence when speaking in groups or to the class. Although changing
students from passive to active learners is not always a smooth transition, most

students would agree the change is a positive one.

One other aspect of the traditional classroom that must Change if a problem-

solving curriculum is adopted is assessment.

“While it certainly does not make much sense to ask students

to enter into a process of discovery, then use a negative grading
system in which credit is deducted for ‘errors,’ neither does it
make sense to simply ask students to grade themselves.”

(Settlage and Sabik, 1997)

Settlage and Sabik point out the importance of adjusting assessment techniques
to meet the needs of a problem-solving curriculum. The key to assessment
seems to be to have a variety of tools with which to evaluate students.
Laboratory reports, presentations, journal entries and assigning points based on
active participation have all been suggested as means of grading in a problem-

solving classroom. Rubrics for grading presentations and laboratory reports

10

may partially be designed by students to give them an even greater sense of
control over their Ieaming. Ramona Lundberg, a chemistry teacher at Deuel
High School in Clear Lake, South Dakota, reports the following benefits to
having students assist with designing rubrics:
“Students are more comfortable and realize their opinion is
valued. Students are more successful because they know
what is expected, and most are willing to work to meet those
expectations. More hands-on activities that emphasize

scientific inquiry are used.”
(Lundberg, 1997)

Inquiry and problem solving have their places in science classrooms around the

world. Although they may be difficult to implement at first, the change would

likely be for the better.

11

DEMOGRAPHICS OF CLASS

The study population consisted of 110 students enrolled in my five biology
classes at Mattawan High School. Of those students, one was in ninth grade,
102 were in tenth grade and seven were in eleventh grade. Two students in the
sample population qualified for special education services. All students were
given the option to participate or to be exempt from the study. Those who chose
to be exempt from the study still participated in the unit and completed all of the
activities. The only difference between the participating and nonparticipating
students was that only the participating students’ scores were used in the data
analyses. The parent notification letter found in Appendix A was sent home with
all students, and the letters were returned regardless of the participation

preference.

Although biology was not a required class, it was chosen by most students to
partly complete their two-year science requirement at this school. As ninth
graders, most students took physical science, which was a year-long class that

surveyed such topics as chemistry, forces and motion, and rocks and minerals.

12

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIT

I began teaching the ecology unit on May 8, 1998. It was the last unit to be
covered before the end of the school year. I felt this would be a good time and
place in the biology curriculum for a few reasons. The most important reason
was that ecology brings together all other facets Of biology. It combines
knowledge of plants and animals, genetics, cells, basic chemistry and evolution.
As the students had studied these topics already, I felt they could bring more
into our discussions and investigations of ecology. Also, I wanted to keep the
students focused on school, something that becomes especially difficult in May,
and I hoped a few trips outdoors might spark some interest. I also anticipated
nicer weather in May than in some other months in Michigan. For all of these

reasons, I Chose to teach ecology as the last unit of the school year.

Choosing this time of year to teach ecology did have some drawbacks. One
problem was keeping students on task, as summer was approaching. A minority
of students felt as though their grades could not be altered too much in the last
three weeks of school, so they quit working. The biggest problem I faced was
the continuous stream of class interruptions due to the end-of-the-year activities.
Being new to the school, I was not aware of how much instructional time would
be lost during these weeks. The loss of time greatly limited what I was able to

accomplish. An outline of what was completed in the unit is given below. The

13

outline shows what topics were taught during the three weeks of the ecology

unit, and it states the activities that were completed each week.

Week 1

Topics: ecology and ecosystems
biotic and abiotic factors
biogeochemical cycles
hypotheses and experimental design
variable and control groups

Activities: pretest
outdoor writing sessions
1. ecosystems
2. biogeochemical cycles
begin “An Onion Conundrum”

Week 2
Topics: biogeochemical cycles
groundwater
food Chains and food webs
energy transfer within an ecosystem
data collection and organization

Activities: observe and manipulate groundwater models
continue investigation “An Onion Conundrum"
prepare presentation

Week 3

Topics: succession
oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes
human impact on environment

Activities: outdoor writing session
1. primary succession
2. secondary succession
presentations on “An Onion Conundrum”
posttest

14

To start the unit on ecology, all students were given a pretest (Appendix B). The
pretest consisted of an objective portion related to ecological concepts and
terms and a subjective portion related to designing an experiment to solve a
specific problem. The last three test items gave students an opportunity to rank
their perceived abilities in ecology, designing experiments and problem solving.
The choices ranged from one (no knowledge or Skills) to five (very
knowledgeable or skilled). The students were not assigned actual grades for the
pretest, but they were given participation points for making a sincere attempt at
the test. I felt that all students made an effort to complete the test to the best Of

their abilities.

As a way of introducing the topic of ecology, the students were taken to a small,
wooded area on the school grounds. The questions, “What is ecology?" and
“What is an ecoSystem?” were asked to all students. After listening to several
responses and not yet being told the correct answer, students were sent out
around the school grounds to find and describe in detail any ecosystem they
chose. This meant that within their small groups, students had to come to a
consensus of what an ecosystem actually was. I let them choose their own
groups, but they were limited to a maximum of three people per group. The
students had to write in their notebooks anything that might be considered a part
of their ecosystem. The notebooks were used throughout the school year as a

tool in which to write notes, document thoughts, ask questions and record

15

laboratory data. After all groups finished, a Classroom discussion was held.

This time, when the same two questions were asked, the answers were much
more detailed. As a class, then, the students were able to decide on appropriate
explanations for the concepts related to ecology and ecosystems. Although
students could have been told the information in a lecture or found the terms in a

book, this seemed to be a more memorable and worthwhile experience!

The days that followed included much the same approach as that first day
outside. Rather than first lecturing students on certain topics and then expecting
them to discuss it, the tables were turned. First, students discussed the topics,
drawing on any previous knowledge or information they might have had. The
teacher’s role in these discussions was only to direct the students to the answers
themselves. Notes were still given; however, rather than being something I
prepared ahead of time and wrote on the board to be copied, I wrote what the
students directed me to write. The students became more involved with the

topics being discussed.

Another example of this process was the introduction of the biogeochemical
cycles, such as the water cycle, carbon cycle and oxygen cycle. Again students
were taken outside, and they were asked to draw on previous knowledge to
introduce themselves to these cycles. The students were told to think about how

these chemicals were traveling in cycles through nature and to write their

16

thoughts on paper. They could have written paragraphs or notes, drawn
diagrams or pictures. How they put the information on paper was not as
important as the actual process of thinking about these concepts, but they had to
document their thoughts in some way. Students who gave in to the standard, “I
don’t know,” were told to look around and think about where carbon could be
found around them or how oxygen gets into the air we breath and so forth.
These prompts were the only bits of assistance that I offered. Grades were
assigned on a scale of one to ten for participation. Students who worked 100%
of the time received ten points, those who worked only half of the time received
five points and so on. After twenty to thirty minutes, the students re-entered the
classroom for a follow-up session. Along with students directing the notes that
were given, some students also put their drawings and diagrams on the board to
share. Many of the student illustrations were more complete and more relevant

than those included in the textbook!

The laboratory investigation seemed to be the most challenging part of the
ecology unit. In the investigation, students worked in groups to determine the
answers to a specified problem. I allowed students to choose their own groups,
and, in all but one class, I limited the group size to four students. In one class, I
did not limit the group size because I was curious to see how the students would
arrange themselves within groups. This turned out to be a mistake. Some

groups were so large (six people) that some members sat idle. In the problem

17

“An Onion Conundrum,” (Appendix C1), the problem was to figure out why Mr.
Vidalia’s onions were not taking root. The students had to determine what
questions to ask Mr. Vidalia and what other scientific data they might need. In
doing this, students not only needed to draw on previous knowledge, but they
also needed to practice wording questions carefully and communicating clearly.
Groups whose questions were vague or indirect spent a great deal of time trying
to get any valuable information, while groups whose questions were well
planned and direct were usually able to start experimenting sooner. Two

examples are given below.

Example #1 Indirect Question: “Could there have been pollutants or

contaminants in the water supply?"

Direct Question: “What factories or other sources
of possible pollution are located on

or near your water supply?”

Example #2 Indirect Question: “Do you fertilize or use chemical

pesticides, herbicides or fungicides?”

Direct Question: “What chemicals do you apply to your

onions and in what amounts?”

18

The indirect questions merely required yes or no responses, while the direct
questions solicited responses with more valuable information. Most students
caught on to this very quickly and revised their questioning techniques as
needed. After gathering enough information about Mr. Vidalia and his onion

crops, each group decided what they believed might be the problem.

Once the groups isolated variables to test, hypotheses had to be written. This
seemed to be quite easy for most groups, but some found it necessary to
conduct some research first. For example, a group determined that the amount
of water added to the onions was the variable to target. Before a hypothesis
could be written, the group had to determine what amounts of water would be too

little, ideal or too much.

After writing the hypothesis, an experiment was designed by each group. I had
to approve each experimental design before it could actually be set up, but I did
not always correct mistakes that were noticed. In most cases, I allowed students
to discover their errors on their own, the exceptions being those that could cause
danger or needless use of valuable materials. When reading the experimental
designs, the following criteria were looked for:

- written as step by step procedure

- included a large enough sample population

- described the testing apparatus to be used

19

- stated the length of time the experiment would run

- contained a control group

Once the designs were checked, the experiments were conducted.

The days that followed included data collecting and a fair amount of design
problem solving. Some of the experimental designs did not work as planned and
required modification. Evaporation of liquid samples, for example, was a factor
that many did not anticipate. In my opinion, some of the best Ieaming

experiences came from the unanticipated problems experienced along the way.

When it came time to draw conclusions about the experiments and solve the

“Onion Conundrum,” I found three categories of conclusions.

Definite Conclusion Sugmrting Hypothesis

These were the ideal results, the results everyone hoped to see.

In this case, the data definitely supported the hypothesis.

Definite Conclusion Refuting Hypothesis

These results usually caused disappointment initially. In this

case, the data clearly showed that the hypothesis was not correct.

20

Many students needed help understanding just how valuable
these results were. Being able to eliminate a variable, they learned,

was a giant step in solving the problem.

lndeterrninate Results

These results were probably the most confusing. In this case,
some data seemed to support the hypothesis, while other data
seemed to refute it. Usually, this type of result was due to a flaw
in the experimental design or it was a problem that could have

been eliminated by a larger sample size.

Any of these results were valuable in the Ieaming process. All of them required
the students to rethink the problem and to project their thoughts toward the
future. Some groups were able to think toward steps to help Mr. Vidalia correct
the problem, while others had to determine what steps they would take next to

try to identify the problem.

The final requirement for the investigation was a presentation of the students’

findings. The presentation provided Students the opportunity to communicate

what they had learned. This is a vital part of problem solving in any discipline.
With this investigation, each group had to discuss how they isolated their

variable (not all groups chose the same variable), how they tested their

21

hypothesis and how they interpreted their data. They also had to either explain
what variable they might test next, if they had not yet solved the problem, or
what recommendations they had for the farmer. l evaluated each group’s oral

presentation according to the rubric in Appendix C1.

Overall, the laboratory investigation involved students in many different inquiry
and problem solving activities. They learned to ask questions, isolate variables,
write hypotheses, design experiments, collect data. draw conclusions and
communicate findings. We started each class with a discussion session in
which students could vent frustrations, ask questions and voice concerns about
their project. Other students would respond, offering answers, suggestions and
advice. Again, my role was that of a facilitator while students were actively

involved in their Ieaming processes.

The investigation, “An Onion Conundrum,” was the only investigation completed
during this unit. Two other ecology-based investigations following a similar
pattern were also developed (Appendix CZ and C3). These were to be used as
part of the semester long class that l was preparing for originally. Because of
time constraints, these activities were not used in my teaching of ecology this

year, but they will be used in my biology Classes in the future.

The final assessment used to evaluate the entire unit was the same test as that

22

given as the pretest. I chose to use the same test so that other variables, which
might have appeared while designing a new test, would be eliminated. The
students were not told in advance that the same test would be used. This time
the actual grade achieved by each student was recorded as part of his or her

Class grade.

23

EVALUATION

OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

All of the students in the sample population were administered the same pretest
and posttest which contained an objective portion with forty multiple choice
questions. The focus of these forty questions was ecological terms and
concepts. Upon comparing the results of this part of the pretest to the results of
the posttest, I found that the students showed substantial improvement in their
scores (Figure 1). The average number correct on the pretest was 19.77 or
49.4% while the average number correct on the posttest was 32.23 or 80.5%. A
t-test showed these results to be significant at t,o5 with 120 degrees of freedom,
as the test statistic was t=1.63. The statistical analysis supports the idea that

students increased their knowledge of ecology significantly.

24

O

 

 

 

 

Figure 1-Mean Test Scores by Percentage

25

 

 

Total Score

SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS

The scores on the subjective portion of the pretest and posttest also showed
improvement upon completion of the ecology unit (Figure 1); however, the
improvement was less than that of the objective portion and was not found to be
significant upon statistical analysis. The subjective portion of the test focused
on identifying a problem, writing a hypothesis and designing a lab to test the
hypothesis. The mean pretest score, out of 14 possible, was 9.83 correct or
70.2% compared to posttest results of 11.37 correct or 81.2%. When a t-test
was completed, the test statistic was t=0.403 which shows that the increase in

scores is not significant (at 120 degrees of freedom).

Questions 46-48 on the pretest and posttest also provided some subjective
feedback from students. All of the results demonstrate that the students
believed they improved in basic ecological knowledge, experimental design and
problem solving. The average responses on the pretest and on the posttest are

given for each item. All of the items use the following scale:

1=no knowledge or skills

2

3=average

4

5=very knowledgeable or skilled

26

46. Confidence in knowledge of ecology
pretest = 2.24
posttest = 3.5
47. Confidence in solving ecological problems
pretest = 2.9
posttest = 3.65
48. Confidence in ability to write hypotheses and design experiments

pretest = 2.99
posttest = 3.74

A final subjective measure of the success of the ecology unit was in the form of a
student survey (Appendix D). Following the completion of the ecology unit, all
students were given the to convey their thoughts on the unit. The students were
directed to circle “1" if they definitely agreed with the statement Closest to the 1,
or circle “5" if they definitely agreed with the statement closest to the 5. All other
numbers were to be used as middle ranges. The average response is given in
parentheses next to each survey item. The written comments have been

separated into pros and cons (Figure 2).

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating of 1 Rating of 5 Average Response
simple complex 2.9

easy to learn difficult to learn 2.5

boring interesting 3.7

impractical practical 3.9

for scholars only for everyone 4.0

worthless to society valuable to society 4.1

worthless to me valuable to me 3.7

did not affect my critical improved my critical 3.7

thinking skills thinking skills

 

 

 

Table 1-Average Responses on Student Survey

28

 

 

PROS

CONS

 

jogged memory of prior Ieaming

needed more labs

 

easy to comprehend

don’t use onions

 

fun unit

need more visual demonstrations

 

liked going outside

seemed like any other unit

 

got to move around more

hard to work outside

 

liked all of the lab time

too much writing

 

 

 

beneficial unit monitor individuals better
interesting didn’t find it important
group projects were good unit was boring

 

made me depend more on my own
thinking and analyzing skills

needed more instruction and less
independent work

 

better way of Ieaming

difficult to learn

 

pretty cool chapter

should have taught unit earlier

 

should learn everything this way

experiments were boring

 

surprisingly interesting

didn’t like having to use textbook

 

stimulated curiosity

some things weren’t explained well

 

enjoyed being able to develop things
for myself, not just follow directions

harder to learn than with lecture and
notes

 

favorite unit of the year

hard to memorize terms

 

got us thinking on our own

biogeochemical cycles were hard

 

well organized, prepared and
presented

note-taking was boring

 

everyone was a little more interested

unit was too short

 

it was fun being independent

didn’t spend enough time on topics

 

 

interacting unit with everyday
meaning

 

 

Figure 2-Student Comments Regarding Ecology Unit

29

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The statistical analysis of collected data supports the idea that problem solving
is an effective technique in teaching ecology; however, as educators know, the
merits of any teaching program do not lie in test scores alone. Many practical
implications must be considered as well. What follows is an analysis of both the
positive and negative components of this unit. After considering all aspects, I
concluded that using inquiry and problem solving to teach ecology was well

worth the effort.

One of the most difficult aspects of implementing this unit was anticipating the
unknown. It is easy to plan necessary lab materials and to prepare notes and
information for topics that you know will be covered. It is much more difficult to
try to anticipate questions that will be asked and to gather lab materials for
procedures that have not yet been determined. A teacher who usually
demonstrates a high level of organization and preparedness may need to show

a greater degree of flexibility.

A very positive feature to planning for the unexpected was that I had to learn the
content more deeply in order to be prepared for my students’ questions. I also
had to think through as many lab designs and strategies as possible in

anticipation of the students’ designs. Although this type of planning was very

30

time consuming, a great deal of confidence and satisfaction came from knowing

that l was so thoroughly prepared.

Another area of difficulty was maintaining the “controlled chaos” in the
classroom, especially during the lab investigation. Rather than having all
students working on the same procedure at relatively the same pace, various
groups were carrying out different procedures at all times. It was difficult,
therefore, to determine if all members of each group were on task as they should
have been. I also quickly found that I needed to have alternate activities or
assignments for students to work on while others worked with their laboratory

procedures.

To help eliminate the problem of students not being on task, I will make a few
minor adjustments when l next teach this unit. First, I would limit the group size
to two or three people. Although this will require more supplies and materials, it
helps assure that each student has work to do. I would also require that each
student keep a journal of his or her daily contributions to hold each student
accountable. The journal would be in addition to any comments recorded in the
student’s lab notebook, as the lab notebooks are not collected and graded.
Another adjustment I would make is to limit the amount of lab time allowed per
Class period. I allowed unlimited time in the laboratory, thinking that students

would get more involved if they were not rushed. Unfortunately, time was

31

wasted, so, in the future, I will limit laboratory time to 15-20 minutes per day.
Any additional time needed would have to be scheduled by individual groups.
This should encourage the students to work more efficiently. If these changes

are made, the laboratory sessions will likely run more smoothly.

Another area that I need to improve is my teaching of actual problem-solving
Skills. As demonstrated by the subjective test results, the students did not show
substantial improvement in this area. That may have occurred because I did not
teach problem-solving techniques at a more complex level, but rather I taught
just basic skills. I believe many of the students already had those basic skills
and would have benefitted more from Ieaming to build on them. The test scores
showed students had knowledge of problem solving, but they did not

substantially improve that knowledge.

Many unexpected benefits arose during the course of this unit. One of these
benefits was the increased amount of student writing. Writing across the
curriculum is a goal that many schools, including Mattawan High School, have
in place. Without purposely trying to, l incorporated many more writing
opportunities into this unit that I normally did. By documenting their own
thoughts and ideas, creating questions, designing experiments, and preparing
presentations, students ended up doing a large amount of writing. Although

some students would disagree, I feel any writing opportunities are beneficial.

32

Another unexpected benefit was the depth of student involvement. Many
students considered this to be the best unit of the class because they were
active participants in the Ieaming process. The level of confidence in their own
abilities increased. They personalized the lab scenarios and worked almost
competitively to determine who could figure out the ecology concepts first. Of
course this did not apply to all students; some still felt that their Ieaming needs
were not being met. In most cases, these were the students who chose not to be
active learners, but were more content to welt for someone to give them
answers. As that did not happen much in this unit, some of those students
became frustrated. To work though those frustrations, I spent some extra time
working with those students, showing them how easy and satisfying it can be to

think independently.

The most important benefit I received from using inquiry and problem solving
while teaching ecology was how much more I enjoyed my classes. It was more
fun to interact with my students in a spontaneous way than to Simply be the
person who supplies them with information. I learned more about the diverse
backgrounds and personalities of my students in those few weeks than I had all
year! Some of the monotony of teaching that usually becomes all too prevalent
by May was replaced with curiosity and anticipation. My own enthusiasm likely

contributed to the success of the unit.

33

Inquiry and problem solving are positive additions to a unit studying ecological
concepts. It forces students to do some independent, critical thinking , and it
asks students to draw on previous knowledge and look toward the future. The
study of ecology would not be complete without some examination into the role
of humans in our environment. After completing this unit, I am confident that my
students have a better understanding of that role, and an increased ability to

critique their own positive and negative environmental impacts.

APPENDIX A

STUDENT/PARENT CONSENT LETTER

Kari Hoikka

Biology Teacher
Mattawan High School
56720 Murray Street
Mattawan, MI 49071
668-3361 ext. 1107

May 1, 1998
Dear Parent/Guardian:

In the process of broadening my knowledge of the biological sciences, l have
been participating in a Masters degree program with the Division of Science and
Mathematics Education at Michigan State University. During the course of my
studies, I have developed a teaching unity on ecology which I plan to use in the
classroom this spring. I would like to include assessment data from my students
in my final thesis. Your student will not be mentioned by name, nor identified in
any way.

Although use of your student’s data is voluntary and will not be reflected in your
student’s grade, it is important to the study. Your consent is important. Should
you choose not to give your consent for your student’s participation, no penalty
will be assessed against the student. If you have questions or require further
information, you may contact me at Mattawan High School and leave a message
on my voice mail.

Sincerely,
Kari A. Hoikka
Biology Teacher

Student Name
Student Signature Date

 

l, . have read and understand the situation involving
assessment data being collected on my student at Mattawan High School. With

35

full understanding that participation in the study is voluntary, and lack of
participation would result in no penalties to my student, I:

_ give consent for my student to participate in the curriculum study in
biology Class at Mattawan High School.

_ do ggt give consent for my student to participate in the curriculum
study in biology class at Mattawan High School.

Parent/Guardian Signature Date

 

APPENDIX B

ECOLOGY PRETEST AND POSTTEST

1. Which level of a food pyramid has the most biomass?

A) top

B) middle

C) bottom

D) all are equal

. Which is a water pollutant commonly caused by decay of organic materials?
A) ammonia nitrogen

B) copper

C) iron

D) nitrate nitrogen

. Which is a water pollutant commonly caused by synthetic fertilizers?
A) ammonia nitrogen

B) copper

C) iron

D) nitrate nitrogen

. What occurs during the eutrophication of a lake?

A) the lake gradually becomes cleaner

B) the lake gradually contains more dissolved oxygen
C) the lake gradually becomes deeper

D) the lake gradually contains less dissolved oxygen

. What is a watershed?

A) area where there is only water, no plants

B) depletion of groundwater

C) area of land that drains into a particular body of water
0) water which flows through a river

. What is the primary role of decomposers in an ecosystem?
A) fixing nitrogen

B) photosynthesis

C) producing water

D) recycling of organic materials

. In an ecosystem, what are autotrophs also known as?

A) primary consumers

B) producers

C) secondary consumers

D) decomposers

37

8. What is made up of a group of individuals of the same species living in the
same area?

A) community

8) habitat

C) niche

D) population
9. What consists of the interactions between living and nonliving things in an
area?

A) community

8) ecosystem

C) habitat

D) population
10. Which of the following is an abiotic factor?

A) amount of rainfall in a given area

B) amount of edible plants

C) number of primary consumers in a population

D) number of producers in a population
11. Which is NOT part of the oxygen cycle?

A) heterotrophs consume plants

B) heterotrophs exhale carbon dioxide

C) heterotrophs exhale water

D) heterotrophs inhale oxygen
12. During what process do trees and plants return water to the atmosphere?

A) condensation

B) precipitation

C) respiration

D) transpiration
13. Which of the following is a symbiotic relationship in which one organism
benefits from, but does not harm or help, its host?

A) commensallsm

B) intraspecific

C) mutualistic

D) parasitic
14. What is the process of adding undesirable amounts of heat/energy to a
body of water?

A) biomagnification

B) eutrophication

C) succession

D) thermal pollution

38

15. Which of the following is an example of a herbivore?
A) deer
B) grass
C) wolf
D) vulture
16. What is the name of the process in which bacteria Change nitrites and
nitrates back into atmospheric nitrogen?
A) ammonification
B) denitrification
C) nitrification
D) nitrogen fixing
17. What would result if the primary consumer was missing from a food Chain?
A) both producer and secondary consumer would die
B) producer would increase while secondary consumer decreased
C) neither the producer nor secondary consumer would be affected
D) producer would decrease while secondary consumer increased
18. What is the grouping of all organisms in a specific area?
A) community
8) ecosystem
C) habitat
D) population
19. What type of relationship exists between fungi and algae in a lichen?
A) intraspecific
B) commensalistic
C) mutualistic
D) parasitic
20. In the relationship between a wolf and a rabbit, what does the wolf
represent?
A) autotroph
B) herbivore
C) predator
D) prev
21. What is ecology?
A) study of animals and their relationships with each other
B) study of living things and their relationships with their environment
C) study of plants and their relationships with each other
D) study of plant and animal interactions
22. What type of plants have nitrogen-fixing bacteria on their roots?
A) autotrophs
B) legumes
C) vegetables
D) weeds

39

23. Which is a way that consumers return carbon to the atmosphere?
A) perspiration
B) photosynthesis
C) respiration
D) transpiration
24. Which of the following is an example of succession?
A) a tamer rotating his crops from year to year
B) a pond slowly becoming a marshy field
C) a developer planting new trees in a subdivision
D) a river being dammed up into a lake
25. What is another name for a herbivore?
A) primary consumer
B) secondary consumer
C) tertiary consumer
D) predator
26. What type of organisms feed on both plants and animals?
A) autotrophs
B) carnivores
C) omnivores
D) herbivores
27. What is the exchange of energy and organic materials from one organism to
another?
A) biomagnification
B) decomposition
C) food chain
D) succession
28. Of the air we breathe, approximately what percent is oxygen?
A) 03%
B) 20%
C) 50%
D) 75%
29. What is the most abundant gas in our atmoshere?
A) carbon
8) hydrogen
C) nitrogen
D) oxygen
30. Which is NOT a DIRECT part of the water cycle?
A) evaporation
B) photosynthesis
C) precipitation
D) transpiration

4o

31. Which of the biogeochemical cycles is no longer efficient because of
pollution?
A) carbon
B) nitrogen
C) oxygen
D) water
32. What is the niche of a honey bee?
A) a flower
B) a tree
C) class lnsecta
D) producing honey
33. In a grassland, what do prairie-dogs, rabbits, and rattlesnakes have
overlapping?
A) biomass
B) habitats
C) niches
D) populations
34. In what form is energy stored in an ecosystem?
A) chemical bonds
B) electrical fields
C) nitrogenous wastes
D) nuclear plants
35. Which body of water would most likely have the warmest temperatures, the
most plant growth, and the least amount of dissolved oxygen?
A) fast-moving stream
B) one of the Great Lakes
C) eutrophic lake
D) oligotrophic lake
36. What is the mane for the zone of all living things on earth?
A) biosphere
B) community
C) ecosystem
D) population

41

37.-40. Refer to the food/energy pyramid below. Consider the top portion of the
pyramid “a,” followed by “b," “c," and “d” as the bottom section of the pyramid.

A

/ \\

37. Which organisms are at trophic level “d”?
A) carnivores
B) consumers
C) herbivores
D) producers
38. Which organisms are at trophic level “c”?
A) autotrophs
8) primary consumers
C) producers
D) secondary consumers
39. If trophic level “c” contains approximately 100 kilograms of minnows, then
what would trophic level “b” probably contain?
A) 10 kg of algae
B) 100 kg of algae
C) 10 kg of bass
D) 100 kg of bass
40. Which trophic level represents the secondary consumers?
A) level “a”
8) level “b”
C) level “c”
D) level “d”

42

Use the scenario described below to answer the questions.

Mrs. Roth has planted a small flower garden in her back yard with hopes of
attracting butterflies. She has many different species of plants, all white or
yellow flowers, but she has seen very few butterflies. Mrs. Roth suspects that
butterflies are not attracted to the color of her flowers, and she is considering
planting flowers with more vibrant colors (orange, red, pink). Because flowering
plants are so expensive, Mrs. Roth is seeking advice from you first. You need to
determine if this is a wise investment.

41. Briefly state the problem from the scenario.
42. Using proper format, write a hypothesis to the problem.

43. Design an experiment that will test your hypothesis. Write a step-by-step
procedure.

44. What is the variable being studied?

45. What is your control group?

46. Use the scale below to rank your confidence in your knowledge of ecology.
( In other words, how well do you think you understand ecology?)

1 2 3 4 5
no knowledge average very
knowledgeable

47. Use the scale to rank your perception of your ability to solve ecological
problems. (In other words, how skilled are you at identifying a problem and
outlining steps to solve the problem?)

1 2 3 4 5
no skills average very skilled

48. Use the scale below to rank your perception of your ability to write a
hypothesis and design experiments to test your hypotheses.

1 2 3 4 5
no skills average very Skilled

43

APPENDIX C

STUDENT ACTIVITIES

APPENDIX C1-INVESTIGATION: AN ONION CONUNDRUM

PROBLEM

You and your lab partner have recently been hired by an environmental
consulting firm, Hoikka’s Environment Solutions (HES), as researchers for their
agricultural division. Your first assignment is to assist an onion farmer, Mr.
Vidalia, who claims that his onions have failed to take root.

OBSERVATION
Upon accepting this assignment, your first steps in solving his problem should
be to interview the farmer and observe his onion crops.

Write at least five questions that you would ask Mr. Vidalia. Attach additional
pieces of paper if needed.
1.

2.

Write at least five things that you would look for in observing his crops or
preliminary tests that you would run. Attach additional pieces of paper if
needed.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Once you have completed your initial questioning and observing, give your list of
requested information to the supervisor of the HES lab. You will get a set of
sample data and answers returned to you. This will give you all of the necessary
information to begin your own investigation. If you have any remaining

questions for the lab, write them in the space below and return your request to
thelab.

HYPOTHESIS
Read the data and discuss all of the variables that might be affecting the onion
crop. Choose one variable to investigate and write a hypothesis.

Hypothesis:

ANALYSIS
After gathering the data from your experiment, you are ready to draw some

conclusions based on your experiment.
Was your hypothesis correct? How do you knowf?

If your hypothesis was not correct, what variable would you test next?

Were there any problems with your procedure that may have caused the
results to be inaccurate?

45

PRESENTATION

It is now time to present the findings of your investigation to Mr. Vidalia. You
should do this in the form of a formal report. Begin by explaining on what basis
you formed your hypothesis and state your hypothesis. State the materials used
and the experimental procedure you followed. Include a copy of your data table
and your other form of visual representation of the data. Conclude with your
final analysis of the situation and any recommendations you might have.
Remember, this is your first big chance to impress your new employer-keep it
neat and professional! Your boss is watching...

REFERENCE
Arms, Karen. Environmental Science. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1996.

HES INTERVIEW RESULTS

TO:

RE:

UESTION 1

UESTION 2

UETIN3

QUESTION 4

W

QUESTION 6

47

HES LAB RESULTS

TO:

RE:

NAME OF TE T M

48

INVESTIGATION: AN ONION CONUNDRUM-GRADING RUBRIC

OBSERVATION QUESTIONS 0 1 2
- required number
- relevant
- additional questions if needed
HYPOTHESIS O 1 2
- relevant
- proper form
EXPERIMENT 0 1 2
- tests one variable
uses proper control
- easy to follow
- includes detail
DATA 0 1 2
- neat table
- units
- includes all information
ADDITIONAL GRAPHIC 0 1 2
. neat
. visual
- units
ANALYSIS 0 1 2
- accurate
easy to understand
refers to hypothesis

includes next step or suggestions
states possible errors

PROFESSIONALISM 0 1 2
. neat

- spelling/grammar

- proper format

49

INVESTIGATION: AN ONION CONUNDRUM-TEACHER’S NOTES

OBJECTIVES
Upon completing this activity, students should be able to do the following:

organize observations

form a hypothesis based on observations

design an experiment to test a hypothesis

organize data

analyze data and draw relevant conclusions
prepare a formal report illustrating their conclusions

PREREQUISITE SKILLS
In order to complete the activity, students must be able to do the following:

know the components of a hypothesis

be comfortable working with glassware and common lab equipment
collect data

draw conclusions

SUPPLYING INFORMATION TO THE STUDENTS

Once the students write their “OBSERVATION” questions and state the
preliminary tests they would like to do, have the students submit those to you.
Return to the students a fact sheet containing only the answers to those
questions that have been asked. Also report to the students data from the field
only for those preliminary tests they chose to have done.

 

Sample Questions Sample Responses

Is the field irrigated? Irrigated routinely when
needed

What is the water source? Pond near back of
PFOPGFIY

What type of fertilizer is used? None

Are there any nearby industries? No

After you report this information to the students, they may submit more questions
to you, or they may proceed directly to forming a hypothesis.

50

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Depending on the hypothesis, students may require a variety of materials to
conduct their experiments. Some helpful suggestions:
low concentrations of bleach seem to have little effect on the growth of
onion roots
high concentrations of bleach hinder the development of roots
commercial fertilizers in liquid form work very well and come in a variety
of concentrations
“slicing” the and off the onion seems to result in formation of a taproot
“scraping” usually results in the formation of fibrous roots
allow the experiment to run 5—7 days

POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS
Try changing the focus to finding the best way to assist onions in taking root.

Continue the investigation by planting the onions after they have developed
roots and determine any differences in shoot growth.

51

APPENDIX CZ-INVESTIGATION: SOMETHING’S FISHY HERE

PROBLEM

Now that you have proven yourselves to be competent researchers, your
supervisor at Hoikka’s Environmental Solutions (HES) has decided you can
handle a more challenging problem. A woman named A. M. F ibian called HES
concerned about the condition of a pond that is located on her property. It is a
natural pond located on the edge of a forest near her home. Ms. Fibian has kept
the pond well stocked with a variety of fish, but in the past three weeks, many of
the fish have been dying. The majority of the dead fish seems to be of the same
species, but MS. Fibian did not know the name of that species. You and your lab
partner must assess the condition of Ms. Fibian’s pond and determine the
probable cause of the fish kill. Due to the nature of this investigation, your
supervisor would like the two of you to specialize, one of you should act as the
biologist and one of you should act as the chemist. Please decide your roles
before you continue.

Biologist

 

Chemist

 

OBSERVATIONS

You will need to interview MS. Fibian and make some observations at the site of
the fish kill, but you must stay in Close contact with each other and work
together.

What questions might you ask Ms. F ibian regarding the biological aspects of the
pond? List at least five.

52

What questions might you ask Ms. Fibian regarding the chemical aspects of the
pond? List at least five.

1.

2.

EXPERIMENTATIONIRESEARCH
What tests should the two of you perform in order to assess the quality of the

pond and the probable cause of the fish kill? List as many as you thing you will
need.

53

Biologist:
Once you have gotten the answers to your interview questions, you must begin

doing some research on the organisms in the pond. You may use any resources
necessary (books, magazines, journals, computer, etc), but you must carefully
document any and all resources used. If further questions arise, you are
encouraged to contact Ms. Fibian again.

Resources

1.

2.

3.

4.

Further Questions

1.

2.

3.
m:
Obtain the water sample that you temporarily stored in the lab. Conduct all tests
that you determined would be necessary. If you need any additional supplies,

please see your supervisor. Do not forget to keep very accurate records of your
tests in your data table.

DATA
Construct a data table below to show the results of all tests that were conducted.

ANALYSIS

Once all tests have been completed and the research is done, you and your
partner must work as a team to determine the probable cause of the fish kill.
Answering the following questions may help you draw your conclusions.

What possible problem areas, if any, were detected by the chemist?

What possible problem areas, if any, were detected by the biologist?

Are there any connections between these two?

Explain your conclusion as to the best cause of the fish kill.

Are there any other possibilities?

PRESENTATION

You and your partner must now present your findings to MS. Fibian. You must
include your initial observations, the test conducted and their results and an
explanation of the research you conducted. Explain your final conclusion and
the evidence that supports this conclusion. You should also list any other
possibilities that may have contributed to the fish kill. Don’t forget to include a
complete bibliography in case Ms. F ibian wants to do some of her own research.
This is a formal presentation, and it should look neat and professional. Your
next raise may depend on this report!

55

INVESTIGATION: SOMETHING’S FISHY HERE-TEACHER’S NOTES

OBJECTIVES

Upon completing this activity, students should be able to do the following:
formulate questions based on Observations
gather information to solve problems
organize data
integrate collected experimental data and literary information
analyze data and draw relevant conclusions
prepare a formal report illustrating their conclusions

PREREQUISITE SKILLS
In order to complete the activity, students must be able to do the following:

conduct a literature search

complete the specific water chemistry tests needed to obtain desired
results

(Ex: DO, pH, nitrates, phosphates)
collect data
draw conclusions

SUPPLYING INFORMATION TO THE STUDENTS

Once the students write both their biological and chemical “OBSERVATION"
questions, they should submit those to you. Return to the students a fact sheet
containing only the answers to the specific questions asked. Do not supply any
additional information unless formally asked by the students.

Check over the list of test the students feel should be completed. If you feel any
of the tests should not or could not be done by the students, you may want to
send them a memo similar to the one below.

NOTICE
To: Researcher
From: Lab Supervisor

 

The HES laboratory has insufficient facilities to conduct the test you
requested.
Please suggest an alternative.

You must supply each group with a Water sample. The water samples may be
adjusted so that each group has different variables. or they may all be the same.

Suggested Chemical variations:
alter the pH of the water
alter the amount of dissolved oxygen (increase by aeration. decrease by
boiling)
add various fertilizers to alter the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus
make the water somewhat salty

Suggested biological variations:
have the dead fish be brook trout (require more oxygen)
show that grass carp are living in the pond in large numbers
(illegal in Michigan due to destruction of habitat for native fish)

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Depending on the extent of knowledge in the area of water quality, this will vary
greatly. Water test kits are ideal for the chemical analysis. The amount of
background the students have should dictate how you prepare their water
samples.

POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS

Combine the pond study with an investigation of the forest nearby.

Have the students act as newspaper reporters doing a story on the fish kill in
Ms. Fibian’s pond. Have each student submit one article.

57

INVESTIGATION: SOMETHING’S FISHY HERE-GRADING RUBRIC

OBSERVATION QUESTIONS-BIOLOGIST 0 1 2
. required number

. relevant

- additional questions if necessary

OBSERVATION QUESTIONS-CHEMIST O 1 2
. required number

. relevant

EXPERIMENTATION 0 1 2
. relevant

. completed accurately

RESEARCH 0 1 2
- complete

- documented correctly

- appropriate sources

DATA 0 1 2
. neat table

- units

. includes all information

ANALYSIS 0 1 2
. thorough

- supported by fact

- includes other possibilities

PROFESSIONALISM O 1 2
. neat

. spelling/grammar

. proper format

58

APPENDIX CS-INVESTIGATION: FINICKY FOWL

PROBLEM

In many ponds in the northeastern United States, two species of duckweed can
be found growing together. The two species, Spirode/a po/yrhiza (Greater
Duckweed) and Lemna minor (Lesser Duckweed) are so similar that they coexist
in many pond habitats, and they compete for available resources. In nature. this
is not usually a problem, but for Mr. Bill Fowl, it is an enormous problem. Mr.
Fowl raises a Special breed of ducks, and his ducks love to eat L. minor. For
whatever reason, his ducks are not at all interested in S. polyrhiza. Mr. Fowl
would like to find a way to reduce the amount of S. polyrhiza in his duck ponds
so that more L. minor will be able to grow. At this point, we don’t even know if
this is possible. Obviously, adding herbicides of any type would destroy all of
the duckweed, so Mr. Fowl brought his problem here to Hoikka’s Environmental
Solutions (HES). In order to better serve our client, I think it would be best if you
and your partner worked as a team with two other lab partners.

OBSERVATIONS

Before you can begin to help Mr. Fowl, you may need to do some research on
duckweed. You and your partner must answer the questions below.

What are some general characteristics of duckweed?

How can you distinguish between the two types?

What are the basic resources required by these plants?

HYPOTHESIS

Once you have completed your background study, you and your partner should
form one hypothesis to test one of the resources shared by duckweed. Check in
with the other two members of your team. Make sure that they are testing a
different variable than you. Write your hypothesis below.

Hypothesis:

59

EXPERIMENT

Now that you have written your hypothesis. you must design an experiment to
test you hypothesis. Remember, your experiment should focus only on the one
variable mentioned in your hypothesis.

Materials:
Procedure:

DATA
Construct a data table below to record your information.

ANALYSIS
After gathering the data from your experiment, you are ready to draw some
conclusions based on your tests.

Was your hypothesis correct? How do you know/?
If your hypothesis was not correct, what variable would test next?

Were there any problems with your procedure that may have caused the results
to be inaccurate?

What recommendations do you have for Mr. Fowl regarding his duckweed
problem?

PRESENTATION

It is now time to present the findings of your investigation to Mr. Fowl. You
should do this in the form of a formal report that is completed by your entire
team. Begin by explaining on what basis both hypotheses were formed and
state them both. List the materials used and the experimental procedure
followed in both cases. Include reports of all of the data. Conclude with your
final analysis of the Situation and any recommendations the team might have.
Four of you are putting this report together, so I’m expecting to be dazzled!

REFERENCE
Beiswenger, J.M.. Experimpnts to Tpgh Ecology. Ecological Society of
America. 1993.

60

INVESTIGATION: FINICKY FOWL—TEACHER’S NOTES

OBJECTIVES
Upon completing this activity, students should be able to do the following:
understand resource competition
organize observations
from a hypothesis based on observations
design an experiment to test a hypothesis
organize data
analyze data and draw relevant conclusions
prepare a formal report illustrating their conclusions

PREREQUISITE SKILLS
In order to complete the activity, the students must be able to do the following:
know the components of a hypothesis
have general knowledge of plant growth and required resources
collect data
draw conclusions

ABOUT DUCKWEED...

Duckweed, a free-floating plant, may be easily collected from the surface of
ponds or areas of slow-moving or stagnate water. Lemna minor has small (2-
5mm), round or oval leaves (commonly called thalli) that usually occur in clusters
of 2-4. It has one root which tends to grow quite long. Spirodela polyrhiza has
round leaves that are usually slightly larger (3—8mm) and are purple underneath.
It usually has numerous roots that are quite short. Both species require the
same basic resources: water, light nutrients and space.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The experiments could vary greatly depending on the amount of information and
guidance you give the students.

Some helpful suggestions:
use commercial liquid fertilizer
alter photoperiods using grow lamps and dark Closets
change size of containers to determine effects of population density

61

INVESTIGATION: FINICKY FOWL-GRADING RUBRIC

OBSERVATIONS 0 1
- characteristics

- comparisons

. required resources

HYPOTHESIS #1 O 1
- relevant

. proper form

HYPOTHESIS #2 O 1
EXPERIMENT #1 0 1
- tests one variable

- uses proper control

- easy to follow

- includes detail

EXPERIMENT #2 O 1
DATA 0 1
. neat table

. units

- includes all information

ANALYSIS 0 1
- accurate

easy to understand
refers to hypothesis
includes recommendation
states possible errors

PROF ESSIONALISM 0 1
. neat

- spelling/grammar

- proper format

62

APPENDIX D

STUDENT SURVEY

Directions: Read each pair of opposite statements referring to your opinions
about the ecology unit just completed. Circle “1” if you definitely agree with the
statement Closest to the 1 or circle “5" if you definitely agree with the statement
closest to the 5. All other numbers should be used as middle ranges.

Simple 3 Complex
Easy to learn 3 Difficult to learn
Boring 3 Interesting
lmpractical 3 Practical
For scholars only 3 For everyone
Worthless to society 3 Valuable to society
Worthless to me 3 Valuable to me
Did not affect my 3 Improved my critical
critical thinking thinking skills
skills
Comments:

 

 

 

63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Project 2061:
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, DC. 1997.

Anderson, H.O. Teaching Toward 2000: Examining science education reform.
The Science Teacher. September 1994.

Bloomfield, M.M., et. al. REAL science: An instructional framework for
context-based Ieaming. The Science Teacher. October 1996.

Chiappetta, E.L. Inquiry-based science: Strategies and techniques for
encouraging inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher. October
1997.

Costa, A.L. Teaching for, of and about thinking. Developing Minds. edited by
A. Costa. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Alexandria, VA. 1991.

Delisle, R. How to Use Problem-Based Learning in the Classroom. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. 1997.

Edwards, C.H. Promoting student inquiry. The Science Teacher. October
1997.

Hargreaves, A. Rethinking educational Change: Going deeper and wider in
the quest for success. Rethinking Educational Change With Heart and
Mind, edited by A. Hargreaves. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. 1997.

Linn, MC. The role of the laboratory in science Ieaming. Elementary Science
Journal. March 1997.

Lundberg, R. Student-generated assessment. The Science Teacher. January
1997.

McTighe, J. and J. Schollenberger. Why teach thinking? A statement of

rationale. Developing Minds, edited by A. Costa. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. 1991.

64

Minstrell, J.A. Teaching science for understanding. Toward the Thinking
Curriculum: Cunent Cognitive Research, edited by LB. Resnick
and LE. Klopfer. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, VA. 1989.

National Science Teachers Association. Scope, Sequence and Coordination
of Secondary School Science: The Content Core. 1992.

Settlage, J. and CM. Sabik. Harnessing the positive energy of conflict in
science teaching. Theory Into Practice. Winter 1997.

Swartz, R. Developing writing prompts for assessing thinking and content
Ieaming in science classrooms. Assessment in the Learning
Organization: Shifting the Paradigm, edited by A. Costa and B. Kallick.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria,
VA. 1995.

65

nICHIGnN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
IlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
31293017141270