LEARNING PROGRESSION OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM REASONING FOR LOWER
ELEMENTARY (G1-4) STUDENTS
By
Hayat Al Hokayem

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education

2012

ABSTRACT
LEARNING PROGRESSION OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM REASONING FOR LOWER
ELEMENTARY (G1-4) STUDENTS
By
Hayat Al Hokayem

In this study, I utilized a learning progression framework to investigate lower elementary
students (G1-4) systemic reasoning in ecology and I related students reasoning to their sources of
knowledge. I used semi-structured interviews with 44 students from first through fourth grade,
four teachers, and eight parents. The results revealed that a hypothetical learning progression
begins with anthropomorphic reasoning as the lower anchor and ends with complex causal
reasoning as the upper anchor for students in this age. However the results showed that many
students revealed mixed-level reasoning - meaning that they can reason at different levels in the
same context. Very few students were able to use scientific terms and even those who did use the
terms were not able to capture the scientific meaning of those terms. The results also revealed
that students’ accounts about scenarios in the various categories of systemic reasoning were
inconsistent. Finally, the results concerning sources of knowledge revealed that students acquire
their ideas from various sources, the media being the most frequently mentioned source,
followed by books, personal experiences and parents. Those results have implications for
defining the learning progression in general, for the validation of the hypothetical learning
progression and for practical development of curriculum and instruction. With regard to defining
the learning progression, the presence of mixed-level reasoning opens the discussion whether
learning progression levels should be strictly pure levels or should include combinations of
various levels to identify students’ reasoning. With regard to validation of the hypothetical

learning progression, the inconsistencies of students’ answers and low correlations across various
categories of systemic reasoning suggest that the categories used in this study were distinct.
Finally the results of students’ sources of knowledge has implications for designing a curriculum
that capitalizes on students interests such as media and general books and scaffold students to
move them up to scientific reasoning.

Copyright by
HAYAT AL HOKAYEM
2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Amelia Wenk Gotwals for her support throughout
my graduate school program at Michigan State University. She has been a wonderful mentor and
advisor and a great inspiration to my work.

I also would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Andy Anderson, Dr.
Suzanne Wilson, and Dr. Samantha Caughlan for their guidance and their precious advice during
important moments of my graduate school program.

Moreover, I would like to thank the teachers and principal at the elementary school where
I collected data for their generous time and support of my work. In addition, I would like to
thank the parents of the students for their time and generous information and most of all I would
st

th

like to thank the 1 through 4

graders whom working with was a real pleasure and fun.

Finally, special thanks to Ignat Soroko whose support, love and care made it possible for
me to finish my dissertation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
The Importance of Ecology and Systems Reasoning .................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 5
Research on Students’ Reasoning of Ecology............................................................................. 5
Research on Learning Progressions .......................................................................................... 10
Theoretical Framework and Research Questions ...................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 Research Design ........................................................................................................... 23
Setting........................................................................................................................................ 24
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 25
Data sources .............................................................................................................................. 26
Analytic Techniques .................................................................................................................. 35
Accommodating for the Culture Difference.............................................................................. 43
Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 46
st
th
Results of Research Question 1: What are patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ systems
reasoning about ecosystems? .................................................................................................... 46
st th
Results of Research Question 2: How are 1 -4 graders’ reasoning similar or different across
each grade level, gender or ability? ........................................................................................... 69
st th
Results of Research Question 3: How is 1 -4 graders’ reasoning across and within the
various system categories correlated? ....................................................................................... 72
st th
Results of Research Question 4: Where do 1 - 4 graders learn about ecological
relationships? ............................................................................................................................. 77
Learning More about Students Sources of Knowledge From Eight Cases ............................... 81
Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 103
Comparing the Results to other Empirical Work .................................................................... 103
Implications of the Results for the Definition of Learning Progressions ................................ 109
Evaluation of the Validity of this Hypothetical Learning Progression ................................... 113
Implications of the Sources of Knowledge for Learning progression Research ..................... 116
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................... 125
Future Research ....................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix I: Questions for Three Categories of Systemic Reasonig .......................................... 130

vi

Appendix II: Circular Connectivty Questions ............................................................................ 134
Appendix III: Teacher Interviews ............................................................................................... 135
Appendix IV: Interview with One Parent of (S7G4F) ................................................................ 136
Appendix V: Sample Interview Organization from S23G2M .................................................... 137
Appendix VI: Initial Learning Progression................................................................................. 143
Appendix VII: Consistency Table for All 44 Students ............................................................... 144
References ................................................................................................................................... 148

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Student Sample (N=44) ................................................................................................. 25
Table 2: Summary of Life Science Units for G1-4. ...................................................................... 28
Table 3: Addressing the Various Research Questions Thorough Interview Questions. ............... 30
Table 4: Summary of Questions Representing Three Category of Systemic Reasoning. ............ 32
Table 5: Summary of Data Sources and Analytic Techniques for Each Research Question. ...... 35
Table 6: Sample of Triangulating Data to Find Out About Students’ Sources of Knowledge. .... 42
Table 7: Final Learning Progression for Systemic Reasoning of Ecology. .................................. 48
Table 8: Level 1-Anthropomorphic Reasoning. ........................................................................... 52
Table 9: Level 1.5-Concrete or Practical Reasoning. ................................................................... 54
Table 10: Level 2-Simple Causal Reasoning. ............................................................................... 56
Table 11: Level 3-Causal Reasoning that Takes into Account Two External Factors. ................ 58
Table 12: Level 4-Causal Reasoning that Considers a Network of Relations. ............................. 59
Table 13: Frequency of Occurrences for Students with Mixed-levels. ........................................ 66
Table 14: Illustration of Students Showing “Mixed-level Reasoning” in Systemic Reasoning. .. 67
Table 15: Correlation of Gender, Grade and Ability with Systemic Reasoning (N=44). ............. 69
Table 16: Correlation between Grade Level for Systemic Interdependency Questions (N=44). . 70
Table 17: Correlations across Systemic Reasoning Categories (N=44). ...................................... 72
Table 18: Correlation within Systemic Interdependency Category (N=44). ................................ 73
Table 19: Correlation within Dynamic Recycling Category (N=44). .......................................... 73
Table 20: Sample of Four Students’ Consistency of Answers. .................................................... 74
Table 21: Example of One Student’s Consistent Answers S12G3M. .......................................... 75
Table 22: Example of One Student’s Inconsistent Answers S14G3M. ........................................ 76
viii

Table 23: Frequency of Occurrence for Each Resource. .............................................................. 78
Table 24: Jane’s Profile ................................................................................................................ 82
Table 25: Olinda’s Profile............................................................................................................. 85
Table 26: Ron’s Profile ................................................................................................................. 87
Table 27: Cory’s Profile................................................................................................................ 89
Table 28: Macy’s Profile .............................................................................................................. 91
Table 29: George’s Profile ............................................................................................................ 92
Table 30: Evan’s Profile ............................................................................................................... 94
Table 31: Annie’s Profile .............................................................................................................. 97
Table 32: Relating Students Learning Progression Level to their Sources of Knowledge. ......... 99
Table 33: Summary of the Findings for Each Research Question .............................................. 100
Table 34: Frequencies for Each Category of Systemic Reasoning ............................................. 104
Table 35: Transcript of Circular Connectivity Question for S23G2M ....................................... 137
Table 36: Transcript for Picture without arrows for S23G2M ................................................... 138
Table 37: Transcript for Picture with Arrows for S23G2M ....................................................... 138
Table 38: Transcript for Feedback loop system reasoning for S23G2M .................................... 142
Table 39: Preliminary Learning Progression Coding scheme .................................................... 143
Table 40: Consistency Table ....................................................................................................... 144

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Picture Used in Systemic Reasoning Question. ............................................................ 32
Figure 2: Scenario Question for Probing the Circular Connectivity Category. ............................ 33
Figure 3: Frequencies of Various Levels and Sub-levels of Various Interview Questions. ......... 63
Figure 4: Frequency of Distribution of Levels of Systemic Interdependency Questions. ............ 65
Figure 5: Frequency of Distribution of Levels of Dynamic Recycling Questions. ...................... 66
Figure 6. Frequency of Responses at Each Grade Level for the Plant Question .......................... 70
Figure 7 The Frequency of Responses at Each Grade Level for the Poison Question . ............... 71
Figure 8: First Scenario for Students .......................................................................................... 130
Figure 9: Scenario with Arrows .................................................................................................. 131
Figure 10: Feedback Loop Reasoning ........................................................................................ 132
Figure 11: Circular Connectivity Scenario ................................................................................. 134

x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
In this dissertation, I report on a study in which I developed a hypothetical learning
progression of lower elementary students’ (G1-G4) systems or systemic reasoning about species
interactions in an ecosystem and describe students’ sources of knowledge (Barton, 2009) that
may explain specific ways of reasoning. In this chapter I introduce the importance of ecology as
one of the big ideas in science as well as systemic reasoning as a cross cutting concept. In the
second chapter I present the literature concerning learning progressions, students’ learning of
ecology and systemic reasoning, and the importance of students’ sources of knowledge, all of
which lead to presenting the research questions of the this study. In the third chapter I present the
research design including the participants, the data I collected and the methods I used for
analyzing this data. In the fourth chapter, I present results about the hypothetical learning
progression and students’ sources of knowledge. Finally, in the fifth chapter, I discuss the
implications of the findings in light of other empirical work and outline future research based on
the study’s findings.
The Importance of Ecology and Systems Reasoning
In his book The Diversity of Life, Wilson (1992) describes the various factors that have
impacted biodiversity over 600 million years, but emphasizes that human factor in this modern
age has the most detrimental effect on biodiversity. Biodiversity in an ecosystem is of extreme
importance to our lives. Food, wood, and medicine are the result of species biodiversity which
requires that we work on preserving it. However, the documented loss of biodiversity is alarming
and has reached the level of mass extinction (Lauro, 2012). The 2010 Convention on
Biodiversity mentions that the rate of species loss is 1000 times more than the normal rate and
list several factors that contribute to this – most of which are human behavior such as habitat
1

loss due to human change of natural ecosystem to crop land, introduction of new species, global
climate change, and pollution (UNEP, 2010).

Ecologists believe that studying changes on

ecosystems requires a model of including human action because of the interaction between
biophysical and social aspects of the ecosystem. As Robertson et al. (2012) put it:
The importance of understanding these dynamics cannot be underestimated: Without
understanding couplings between natural and human systems, workable policy solutions
to some of the most recalcitrant environmental problems of today, which range from
degraded water quality to biodiversity loss to climate change vulnerability will remain
difficult to design and even more difficult to achieve. (p. 345)
In order for the public to understand the importance of biodiversity and the role of
humans in preserving it, they need to be educated. Thus, learning about ecosystems and the
various interactions is extremely important for K-12 students. Without proper understanding of
species interactions in ecosystems, matter and energy recycling, and the systemic nature of the
ecosystem, citizens will not understand the importance of biodiversity and may not support the
preservation of ecosystems.

In fact, the latest framework for the new science education

standards identified ecology as the one of four main ideas in the life sciences that needs to be
taught (NRC, 2012).
Understanding how ecological systems work is important for many reasons.

The

renowned ecologist Odum (1977) states: “We are abysmally ignorant of the ecosystems of which
we are dependent parts” (p. 1289), meaning that we need to increase awareness of species
interaction in ecosystems as they influence us and our environment. He argues that biology needs
to have a balance between reductionist approaches (molecular) level and holistic approaches
(ecology). Major ecological concepts, such as the flow of matter and energy as well as biotic and
abiotic interactions, connect the microscopic and macroscopic levels.

2

Systems or systemic reasoning

1

about ecosystems influences understanding and

decision-making about environmental issues (Hogan & Weathers, 2003; Mohan, Chen &
Anderson, 2009).The NRC framework (2012) identified system reasoning as a crucial practice
that applies to open systems such as ecosystems which have complex levels of organizations
leading to properties of the whole system different from the individual parts. When contrasting
closed and open systems, it is worth noting that no system is completely isolated from the
environment; however, some systems (e.g., a watch) have minimal interaction with environment
and so even when they exchange energy as heat with the environment, the matter exchange is
minimal. In contrast, an open system depends on a constant dynamic “input” and “output” that
determines what happens to the system. Odum (1992) emphasizes considering ecological
systems as open systems that dynamically interact with the input and output of matter and
energy. He gives the example of a forest that is not a “self contained” system because external
factors influence the forest, just as the forest influences neighboring environments. Hence,
understanding open systems requires understanding the whole system. In fact, many educators
have advocated teaching systems reasoning in ecology and many other areas of science as a key
socio-scientific practice for scientific literacy:
The main goal of having students learn about systems is not to have them talk about
systems in abstract terms, but to enhance their ability (and inclination) to attend to
various aspects of particular systems in attempting to understand or deal with the whole.
(AAAS, 1993, p. 262)
This study investigates early elementary students’ systems reasoning about ecology. I
consider a scheme for categorizing levels of students’ ecological reasoning within a learning
progression. Since this learning progression is for students who have not yet had formal
1

Note that systems reasoning or systemic reasoning are used interchangeably because they refer
to same reasoning.
3

instruction about the topic, it is important to understand where students acquire their ideas.
Therefore, I also investigated students’ sources of knowledge and related that to students’ levels
of reasoning. I pose the following research questions:
st

th

1. What are the patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ system reasoning about ecosystems?
st

th

a. What are the patterns in 1

to 4

grade students’ system reasoning about

ecosystems with respect to relating the effect of biotic or abiotic factors on the
rest of the food web? (systemic interdependency)
st

th

b. What are the patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ system reasoning in identifying
key factors in ecosystem? (systemic analysis)
st

c. What are the patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems reasoning in

constructing a complex food web? (circular connectivity)
st

d. What are the patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems reasoning about

recycling of matter? (dynamic recycling)
st

th

st

th

2. How is 1 to 4 graders’ reasoning similar or different across each grade level, gender or
ability?
3. How is 1 to 4 graders’ reasoning across the various system categories correlated?
st

th

4. Where do 1 to 4 graders learn about ecological relationships?

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, I review the literature that pertains to two areas: the first area deals with
the research on students’ reasoning about ecology, which allows us to identify what we know
about students’ understanding and reasoning in the this topic so far and what unanswered
questions linger. The second area deals with research on learning progressions, which allows us
to take a developmental approach to how reasoning develops from simple to more sophisticated
levels.
Research on Students’ Reasoning of Ecology
Various empirical studies have investigated students’ reasoning about ecological systems,
particularly the reasoning and misconceptions about species interaction in the ecosystem at the
middle or high school level (e.g., Alexander, 1982; Barman et al., 1995; Gallegos et al. 1994;
Hogan 2000; Web & Glott 1990). In these studies, students were interviewed or given written
assessments that involved questions concerning the effects of a change of one population on
another. Students tended to recognize predator-prey relationships but not other relationships. For
example, students recognized that if a rabbit population decreased, the eagle population that fed
on rabbits decreased, but they did not recognize that if grass decreased, the effect would
eventually influence the eagle population. This reasoning of changing a factor such as population
size and having students predict the effect of the change on other populations in the ecosystem
generated more studies about students’ causal reasoning in the ecosystem context.
Other studies investigated such cause-effect relations in more detail. Green (1997), for
example, examined undergraduate students’ causal reasoning about two or three organisms (e.g.,
M feeds on N, A eats Z which feeds on O) and asked what would happen to N if M decreased or
what would happen to A if we changed the population of O. He found out that students were
5

more likely to identify a simple direct relationship of M on N and only reasoned with two-way
causality (meaning that a change in M will lead to change in N which in turn leads to change in
M) when prompted to do so and did not do this spontaneously. Similarly, White (1997) found
that undergraduate students’ causal reasoning was better when considering a direct predator-prey
relationship rather than a food chain of three populations. He referred to this as a “dissipation
effect” where students thought that the influence was reduced as it moved further away from the
source. For example, if there was a food chain that started with plants that transfer energy to
rabbits that, in turn, transfer energy to wolves, students could recognize the effect of a changing
rabbit population on wolves, but not necessarily the effect of changing plants’ population on
wolves. Green (1997) argued that rabbits and wolves were seen in a direct relationship (one
being food for the other), but that plants and wolves were further from each other and so students
were less likely to recognize the effect. In more recent work, the idea of causal reasoning was
also investigated with elementary students. Grotzer and Bell (2003) found that third grade
students’ causal reasoning improved as a result of a curriculum that explicitly addressed the
causal relationships in the ecosystem. Students were able to identify indirect relationships in food
webs as well as the effect of removing one population on several others in the food web. This
study showed how a specific curriculum and teaching instruction foster a change in students’
understanding; specifically recognizing what the authors called a “domino effect” of changing
one population on the rest of the food web populations. However, even with the slight improved
understanding, the number of students who mentioned understanding of one or two indirect
effects on the ecosystem as a result of changing one population was more than those revealing
understanding of several effects. .

6

Other researchers, Griffith and Grant (1985) investigated a hierarchical model of learning
about food webs. They classified nine skills in a general food web of “subordinate” and
“superordinate” difficulties. They predicted that some skills (e.g., predicting the effect of directly
related populations in one food chain) are easier that others (e.g., predicting the effect of
changing producer population on top carnivore). When testing this model statistically, they found
that certain tasks were indeed more difficult than others (i.e., fewer students were able to trace
the effect of changing a certain populations). They concluded that it is important to recognize the
hierarchy of different interactions in a food web model when teaching about species
interdependency and design a curriculum that moves from simpler to more sophisticated tasks.
However, this study revealed two drawbacks: one was that it started from abstract model rather
than from students’ ideas, and the second was that it was conducted with grade 10 students, so it
was unclear whether this result would hold for students at lower or upper grades.
In addition, other studies considered additional important concepts in reasoning about
ecosystems. Hogan and Fisherkeller (1996) classified 5th and 6th graders’ reasoning of various
concepts (nutrient cycling, food webs and decomposition). They constructed a “bi-dimensional
coding” to determine 5th and 6th graders’ level of sophistication compared to scientific ideas. This
coding scheme organized students ideas according to two dimensions: compatibility with
scientific views and elaboration of students’ reasoning. They found that even when students
responded in a scientifically compatible manner, they still could not elaborate on this response
rendering the understanding rather shallow. Moreover, they also noticed that students did not
recognize that (1) carbon is recycled in the ecosystem and (2) understanding of decomposition
was a precursor to understanding the nutrient cycling and food web interaction.

7

Another study considered the consistency of students’ ideas of ecology. Reiner (2001)
investigated 9th grade students’ ideas and ontological beliefs about food chains; she found that
students’ ideas were “incoherent but consistent”. For example students did not relate the process
of feeding and that of decomposition to matter and energy conservation processes in the same
ecosystem unit; hence their ideas were “incoherent”. The students; however applied the concept
of food chain being an “eating order” to different assessment items that asked them about
producers and consumers; thus rendering this concept “consistent”. In other words, students were
consistent in thinking that organisms feed on each other, but were not coherent in relating
feeding and decomposition to matter and energy. Moreover, there was not much change after
instruction in students’ ontological beliefs in thinking of food chains: Students thought of food
chains as organisms feeding on each other, and identified the organisms’ size as a constraining
factor to how long the food chain can be. This means that rather than having energy as the main
concept of what a food chain represents and how long this food chain can be, students resorted to
intuitive reasoning of food or size of animals to think of food chains.
While there have been studies about students’ misconceptions, causal reasoning, and
conceptual coherence in ecology, Leach et al.’s (1995; 1996a, b) research attempted to paint a
picture of conceptual development of ecology over longer periods of time by taking a cross
section of students at different ages (ages 5 to 16). They classified the main concepts in the field
into recycling of matter, recycling of energy, and interdependency of organisms. They
discovered that students’ ideas about matter recycling start by reasoning from experience and
teleological reasoning and moved to more scientific explanations as they get older. For example,
students’ teleological reasoning for the reason why animals need food was to “become strong”,
whereas more sophisticated students used scientific reasoning to refer to the scientific
8

explanation of energy. Similarly with organism interdependency, younger students used more
teleological explanations whereas some older students referred to food habitat and behavior to
explain their answers (Leach et al., 1995; 1996 a, b). One example of teleological reasoning
consisted as students referring to predator-prey relationships as enemies (e.g., so owls come out
at night because their enemies are not there). This is contrasted with the scientific explanations
where students recognize that predator-prey relationships are governed by energy principles.
Recently, Lehrer and Schauble (2012 a, b) have taken a developmental approach to
studying students reasoning in evolution and ecology by examining students’ learning about
these topics through scientific modeling. They use concepts such as variation and change to
describe reasoning development in evolution, and the concepts such as the relation of organisms
to the place, and other elements of the environment to describe the reasoning development in
ecology. The authors categorize initial reasoning that starts with mapping human characteristics
to animal populations, and the reasoning becomes more sophisticated as students consider the
needs of animals. Later, students are able to develop reasoning that consider factors that
influence populations’ survival and finally students use computer models to consider the biotic
and abiotic interactions in the ecosystem. The authors construct a convincing argument of how
elementary students’ reasoning advances as a result of immersion in modeling practice.
In sum, the literature presents two important ideas that require further research: one is the
need to build on research that has been done with lower elementary students to further
investigate how elementary students about the ecosystems, on lower elementary students and
another is the need for emphasis on investigating learning over time. Research with elementary
students (e.g., Grotzer & Bell, 2003; Lehrer & Schauble, 2012 a, b) has investigated students’
ideas as a result of specific instructional methods, without considering students’ ideas before
9

instruction. Moreover, while Leach et al.’s (1995; 1996 a, b) studies emphasized categorization
by age, they did not investigate the consistency of students’ ideas among the different concepts.
A potential reason for shortage of detailed studies at lower elementary may be the fact that some
middle, high school, and even university students exhibit simple reasoning about food webs.
Thus there may be an assumption that younger students can only exhibit simplistic ecological
reasoning. However, Carey (1985) reminds us that: “Human beings are theory builders; from the
beginning we construct explanatory structures that help us find the deeper reality underlying
surface chaos” (p. 194). Therefore, more empirical work could build on the previous empirical
studies of Leach et al. (1995, 1996 a, b) as well as Lehrer and Schauble’s (2012 a, b) work in
order to understand how younger students reason about species interactions in various settings.
Even though this study did not investigating the same students’ over time, it is still taking
students from various grades which allowed us to shed light on students’ ideas about ecology as
they progress in school.
Research on Learning Progressions
Driver and Erickson (1983) summarized the research on student learning into three
categories: research that (a) empirically tests the validity of a certain theoretical learning model,
(b) attempts to understand what knowledge students spontaneously draw upon in naturalistic
settings, and (c) tests a framework’s stability over time or contexts. The authors argue that the
most effective research is that which uses a clear theoretical background which informs theory
and, in turn, instruction and classroom culture. This is what learning progressions research
attempts to do:
Learning progressions are descriptions of successively more sophisticated ways of
thinking about a topic that can follow one another as children learn about and investigate
a topic over a broad span of time. (NRC, 2007, p. 214)
10

This means that learning progression research investigates students’ conceptual
development over time as students have more experiences and opportunities with various topics.
Although the idea of tracing students’ conceptual development is not new, the idea of
relating conceptual development to curriculum and instruction is new (Duncan & Hmelo-Silver,
2009). Smith et al. (2006) explained that learning progressions bridge the gap between standards
and what students know through empirically documenting the various stages of learning of “big
ideas.” Identifying big ideas and what we expect students to learn is a starting point. This is
followed by empirical research to identify students’ knowledge and reasoning about the big ideas
in order to categorize various stages of knowledge. It has been customary to use the terms “lower
anchor” to refer to least sophisticated reasoning and “upper anchor” to refer to the most
sophisticated reasoning that is age and grade level appropriate and the same time scientifically
sound. The whole process feeds into curriculum development and instructional practices in order
to help students reach the desired outcome. Rather rapidly, learning progressions has become a
research paradigm embraced by many researchers (e.g., Mohan et al., 2009; Schwarz et al., 2009;
Songer et al., 2009) to shed light on students’ reasoning of content and practice.
Duschl et al. (2011) review the learning progression empirical research and notice the
variations in the empirical work of learning progression. They distinguish between learning
“validation” learning progressions and “evolutionary” learning progressions. In the former, the
learning progression takes a top-down approach that starts from the standards and attempts to
construct fixed steps to reach an upper anchor that is dictated by college science content. In the
latter, the learning progression takes a bottom-up approach that starts from empirical data and
attempts to constructs flexible progress variables to reach the upper anchor that are age

11

appropriate and dictated by scientific literacy of citizens. The main difference between those two
kinds of learning progression is how they view conceptual change:
Because the learning progression uses a ‘fix it’ conceptual change focus that seeks to
validate the initial sequences and levels of progression, we refer LP like this as
‘Validation LP’s’ as opposed to ‘Evolutionary LP’s’ that refine and define the
developmental pathway(s) through identification of mid levels or stepping stones that are
then used to bolster meaning making and reasoning employing crafted instructional
intervention. (p. 157)
Even though Duschl et al. (2011) prefer the evolutionary learning progression because of
its advantage of improving science learning and teaching, they acknowledge both types of
learning progression are important at this point because they increase our understanding of the
different levels of students’ reasoning. In fact, the learning progression literature exhibits
considerable variation in terms grain size of sample or content. Some researchers cover broad
spans of time from elementary, middle school and high school (e.g., Mohan et al., 2009; Smith
et. al., 2006); whereas others cover a shorter span, such as upper elementary or middle school
students (e.g., Alonzo & Steedle, 2009; Songer et al., 2009). Moreover, some studies considered
a broad content such as carbon transforming processes that can be applied in situation of
respiration, decomposition and photosynthesis (Mohan et al., 2009), whereas other considered a
narrower content such as photosynthesis (Alonzo et al., 2009). Yet others considered the learning
progression of a practice such as modeling (Schwarz et al., 2009). Even though there is still no
common rule as to what content, sample size that should be followed in the learning progression,
the empirical work of the learning progression has opened the floor to research students’
reasoning in various contexts in an iterative process that considers content, context and students
background knowledge.

12

For the specific case of ecology and biodiversity, Songer, Kelcey, and Gotwals (2009)
describe an empirically based, integrated learning progression for ecology and scientific
explanations that are used to guide the development of curricula and assessment items for
elementary students. They describe how ideas in classification, ecology and biodiversity can
progress over three grades – 4th, 5th and 6th. Parallel with this content progression is the
progression in inquiry skills, which is manifested with a four level progression describing
increasingly sophisticated explanations, with each level also containing elements of scaffolding
to guide students in their development. Moreover, Gotwals and Songer (2010) discuss the
trajectories students follow in order to reason about biodiversity issues and categorize several
kinds of reasoning that they call “middle knowledges” which are elicited by using assessment
items based on writing scientific explanations. They found that even when students are
scaffolded in formulating scientific explanations, there still existed “messy middle” knowledge,
where students may reason using content in certain types of situations, but not others.
The variety in considering various content, practice or grade levels is important to push
our understanding of learning progression at the onset of this research paradigm. However, even
when a learning progression investigated different grain sizes, different grades, or different
content, a common ground for all the studies resides in describing learning in such a way that
related content or practice to students’ reasoning. In addition, many scholars in this area agree on
its value of supporting formative assessment and instruction (Heritage, 2008). Another important
similarity in the above research was that all the studies have been conducted after students were
exposed to formal instruction at some point even when they did not always consider an
intervention study (Mohan et al., 2009). One assumption of this research is that students’
conceptual framework is influenced by the scientific concepts that they are exposed to in
13

classroom. Thus, as many younger students have not been “officially” introduced to science,
most of the learning progression research has emphasized upper elementary or middle school
students as a starting point. However, Alonzo et al. (2009) worked with younger elementary
students in an attempt to construct a learning progression of plant nutrition for grades 1 to 6.
They found that students vary in their levels of sophistication even when they have not officially
learned about how plants make food (i.e., photosynthesis). Hence, students’ scientific knowledge
is informed by many experiences, and their beliefs about scientific concepts are well established
before they enter schools. Thus, many students reach the classroom with experiences that help
them develop their conceptual framework. In fact, Metz (2009) emphasizes the importance of
background knowledge and resources that students capitalize on in their development:
Children’s thinking cannot be simply characterized by common, universal strengths and
weakness. Furthermore, children’s capabilities and trajectories of their development are
more plastic than the original model assumed. Rather than stage alone, an interaction of
maturation, experience and instructional history and current instructional opportunities
(together with individual differences in aptitude, background, interests and motivation)
constrain the path of children’s learning and development. (p. 18)

One could then argue that learning progression research on younger students could enrich
this research paradigm and could help understand how ideas are constructed early on. Moreover,
understanding students’ background knowledge also enriches this paradigm by relating students’
reasoning to their experiences and knowledge resources. Since learning progressions identify
several levels of reasoning (not just the most simple and sophisticated), it is important to identify
the intermediate levels of reasoning for younger children which many times could also be
persistent for students at upper grades or for those who have received formal instruction and the
sources of those ideas. In addition, the question of where students acquire their ideas and
reasoning from becomes important to understanding reasoning at each level. In their revised
14

version of conceptual change theory, Strike and Posner (1992) emphasize the importance of what
they call “conceptual ecology” that takes into account students’ beliefs, culture, everyday
knowledge, epistemological commitments and even emotional factors. Knowledge is always
constructed within a social milieu which influences the way one reasons and this social
construction of knowledge is equally important to the cognitive reasoning. As the authors
mention:
At the same time, it is important to be clear that our view is not neutral about the social
character of knowledge. While scientific concepts may be human constructions, they are
predominately social constructions into which the young are initiated. No account of
learning or of conceptual innovation that misses that fact that conceptions (and
misconceptions) are parts of “forms of life” (Wittgenstein, 1953) into which human
beings are initiated is likely to be reasonable. (p. 170).

This stance has implications for how one views learning progressions. In order to
understand the different learning progressions, one needs to understand the conceptual ecology
of students that examines why students are reasoning in a certain way and from where they
acquire ideas. With very few exceptions (e.g., Mohan et al., 2009), the learning progression
literature has been focused on studying students reasoning from a cognitive perspective, but I
argue it is important to consider the conceptual ecology of the students if we are to understand
how and why learning progression levels exist. In this study, I build on socio-cultural researchers
(Moll et al. 1992; Barton & Tan, 2009) who investigated students’ backgrounds and related
learning to students’ original repertoire of practice. .
Consequently, this study constructs a learning progression about ecology for students at
lower elementary grade (G1-4) that documents how students reason in ecology. The rationale for
this study builds on the existing literature in three ways: First, this study builds on research of
lower elementary students in order to document how students reason in ecology before they have
15

formal instruction.

Second, most learning progression research studies investigated upper

elementary students. However, this study investigates lower elementary students’ reasoning
about systemic reasoning of ecology. Third, this study includes the sources of knowledge of
students in order to investigate how students construct their knowledge and not just document the
various levels of learning progression. However, in order to build the learning progression, it is
important to introduce the theoretical framework that I use which I discuss in the next section
below.
Theoretical Framework and Research Questions
Bertalanffy (1968) was the first to develop the general systems theory that is applicable to
open systems. Rather than taking a mechanistic approach, which recognizes the mechanisms of
the different parts, he advocated taking a holistic approach that recognizes the relationship
among the whole system as an entity. The classical laws of thermodynamics propose that a
closed system evolves from a state of order to that of disorder, which is unlike the open system
which evolves from a state of disorder to order and complex organization. Bertalanffy (1968)
asserted that a key concept in biology is “organization,” which produces a whole that is different
from the sum of its parts. For example, the human body systems have characteristics which
allow them to perform functions different from individual cells. Similarly, ecosystems have
characteristics of energy flow, and species interaction that are at a different level from a single
organism’s need. Moreover, systems such as ecological systems are considered open systems;
when comparing closed and open systems, Bertalanffy argued that equilibrium can only be
reached in a closed system, whereas an open system can only reach a “steady state,” a state of
disequilibrium which nevertheless keeps the system functioning through the flow of materials.

16

Whereas a closed system can reach an equilibrium state where no energy is required to preserve
it, an open system depends on continuous flow of energy to preserve its steady state. He states;
The living cell and organism is not a static pattern or machine like structure consisting of
more or less permanent “building materials” in which energy yielding materials from
nutrition are broken down to provide the energy requirements for life processes. It is a
continuous process in which both so-called building materials as well as energy-yielding
substances are broke down and regenerated. But this continuous decay and synthesis is so
regulated that the cell and organism are maintained approximately constant in a so called
steady state. This is one fundamental mystery of living systems; all other characteristics
such as metabolism, growth, development, self regulation, reproduction, stimulus
response, autonomous activity, etc., are ultimately consequences of this basic fact. (p.
158)
It follows that when dealing with open systems, one should engage in systems reasoning.
This raises the question of what systems reasoning is and how it differs from other forms of
reasoning. Capra (1997) emphasizes the complexity as part of the system and that the complexity
is revealed as an “emergent property” which is understood by studying the pattern rather than
sum of the parts:
Systems science shows that living systems cannot be understood by analysis. The
properties of the parts are not intrinsic properties but can be understood only within the
context of the larger whole. Thus systems thinking is “contextual” thinking; and since
explaining things in terms of their context means explaining them in terms of their
environment, we can also say that all systems thinking is environmental thinking. (p. 37).

It follows from the above that one can think of the whole system by thinking of the
relationships of the different parts and not by thinking of each part separately. Capra (1997)
gives the example of the tree and mentions that when one thinks of the relationship of the leaves,
stems and trunk one automatically thinks of the tree as a whole and not of the specific parts
separately. Therefore, one has to think to identify the specific properties of the system to study.
Chandler and Boutilier (1992) proposed a hypothetical reasoning model that applies to open
systems, “dynamic system reasoning.” They propose four properties for systems reasoning:
17

1. Systemic synthesis: understanding that a change in one component affects others.
2. Systemic analysis: there are critical elements (like water molecules or sun) that are
essential for the system (e.g., hydrologic system) to work and they are different from
incidental elements (e.g., storms).
3. Circular connectivity: one element is a source of energy that projects to other elements
but also receives energy that affects other elements of the system (as opposed to linear
flow of energy from one source to a final destination).
4. Dynamic recycling: molecules do not exit from the system but instead keep circulating in
it.
Chandler and Boutilier (1992) tested whether students’ systems reasoning was
ontologically different from Piaget’s formal operational reasoning or whether it is a kind of
reasoning that develops at the “heels of Piaget’s formal operational reasoning” (p.133). They
interviewed 96 students (ages 8 to 18), about two systems (the hydrologic cycle and nitrogen
cycle), and asked questions aligned with the four properties. They also administered classical
Piagetian tasks to compare the two kinds of reasoning. Although the results showed that systems
reasoning correlated with formal Piagetian reasoning (i.e., older children performing better in
both kinds of reasoning), there were significant statistical differences between the two kinds of
reasoning. That is, students do not necessarily have to master the Piagetian tasks in order to
perform well in the dynamic system reasoning tasks; rather, students’ performance on the
dynamic system reasoning task was a separate “ontogenic” category that develops “parallel” to
Piagetian reasoning and follows after it (p.133).
Since its emergence, the idea of systems reasoning has been empirically tested in order to
determine if students exhibit complex systems reasoning. The results were mixed: some studies
18

showed that even explicit teaching of systems reasoning did not produce significant
improvement. For example, Sweeny and Sterman (2007) conducted a study with middle school
students to find out if systemic reasoning is intuitive. They interviewed students about feedbackloop reasoning of predator prey relationships and other ecological systems and found that
students do not readily use feedback loop reasoning about those systems and thus concluded that
systemic reasoning is not intuitive. Raia (2005, 2008) delineates that reasoning in complex
system requires students to think of several factors that affect the system at its different levels in
order to emergent property which in turn induces what she calls a “downward” causal effect on
the system. For example the V-shape property of geese while flying is an emergent property that
constrains the movement of birds in this shape. She used two questions from earth sciences and
one from biology about V-shape movement of bird flocks and asked students to explain or
hypothesize about the reason for the shape of the birds. The results showed that college students
did not have complex systems’ thinking. She concluded that it is important to explicitly teach
students about the emergent properties in the complex system.
On the other hand, some studies showed that explicit teaching of systems reasoning
resulted in improving complex system reasoning. For example Roberts (1978) found that fifth
and sixth graders significantly improved their systemic reasoning after explicit teaching about
feedback loop models and students were able to identify underlying structures of the models and
demonstrate understanding of the factors that allow the system to change. Similarly Plate (2010)
showed that middle school students who received explicit teaching about systems were able
demonstrate the influence of various factors on the system. The author used a fictitious story
about fish in the ocean that he read for students then gave them cards to reconstruct the system
and he found out that students who received instruction about systemic thinking were able to
19

construct more complex connections of the system even when they did not receive content
knowledge instruction. Hill and Hedden (1985) investigated third and fourth grade students’
systems reasoning using assessment tasks such as introducing students to different ways of
folding the paper and changing the paper folding and asking students what is happening. They
found that students who were introduced to a curriculum that handled systems performed much
better at those tasks than those who did not receive any explicit instruction about systems.
In all of studies above, there was little emphasis on younger students’ reasoning of
ecosystems. Therefore in this study, I take a developmental approach to systems reasoning in
constructing a learning progression of what I will call “systems ecological reasoning.” Knowing
that there are many systems ideas that cut across the ecosystem concept, I first present the
ecosystem model I chose.
Hogan and Weathers (2003) reviewed the literature about ecological reasoning, presented
the history of ecology, and interviewed ecologists in order to identify models of ecosystems.
They present three ecological models that ecologists work with. In the energy model (Odum,
1977; 1992), ecologists view the complexity of ecosystems in terms of energy flow. In the
nutrient recycling model, ecologists analyze the inputs, outputs, and accumulations of nutrients
in their study of ecosystems. The third model emphasizes the interaction among populations,
community, biotic-abiotic factors, and human influence on the ecosystem. It is noteworthy that
the three models are not independent but overlap in explaining the ecosystem. However, the way
certain factors are foregrounded or backgrounded dictates how to study the ecosystem. I will
work within the third model, which emphasizes the species interactions.

20

I justify this choice in two ways. First, while many studies worked within the causal
reasoning of species interactions, this study uses the systems reasoning framework to study
different aspects of students’ thinking in detail. Second, the other two models (flow of energy
and nutrient recycling) can be thought of as parts of a more general concept of matter and energy
that have been studied before.

For example, Mohan et al. (2009) examined carbon

transformation in different instances (photosynthesis or respiration) and developed a learning
progression of how students think of carbon along these phenomena. Therefore, in this study, I
focus on the species interaction as the systems model and attempt to study students’ system
reasoning based on that model. I investigate first through fourth grade students’ systems
reasoning about ecosystems before formal instruction.
I pose the following research questions:
st

th

1. What are the patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ system reasoning about ecosystems?
st

th

a. What are the patterns in 1

to 4

grade students’ system reasoning about

ecosystems with respect to relating the effect of biotic or abiotic factors on the
rest of the food web? (systemic interdependency)
st

th

b. What are the patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ system reasoning in identifying
key factors in ecosystem? (systemic analysis)
st

c. What are the patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems reasoning in

constructing a complex food web? (circular connectivity)
st

d. What are the patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems reasoning about

recycling of matter? (dynamic recycling)
21

st

th

2. How are 1 to 4 graders’ reasoning similar or different across each grade level, gender
or ability?
st th

3. How are 1 -4 graders’ reasoning across the various system categories correlated?
st

th

4. Where do 1 to 4 graders learn about ecological relationships?

This chapter reviewed the literature that relates to students’ learning of ecology, ideas
about learning progressions, and discussed the systemic reasoning framework that is used in this
study. Most studies about learning ecology and learning progression of ecology were conducted
with upper elementary and were intervention studies, and this study builds on the literature to
investigate lower elementary students before instruction in order to broaden our understanding of
how students reason about ecosystems. Moreover, the learning progression literature did not
include the idea of sources of knowledge of students so the last research question of this study
addresses this concept. Knowing that the ecosystem is an open system, I applied the framework
of systemic reasoning adopted from Chandler and Boutilier (1992) in order to construct the
learning progression. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology that I used in order to investigate the
research questions and analyze the obtained results.

22

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
In this chapter, I present the setting for my study, the participants, and data sources. In
addition, I present the coding scheme and analytic techniques I developed and used. I also
discuss how I checked for reliability in coding to and how I accommodated for the cultural
differences between me and the participants.
This study uses a mixed methods approach to construct a hypothetical learning
progression of lower elementary students’ reasoning about ecosystems. It also compares
students’ ideas across various categorical properties of systems reasoning, and examines
students’ sources of knowledge and how various informal experiences influence their reasoning
about ecosystems. Specifically, the research questions are:
st

th

1. What are the patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ system reasoning about ecosystems?
st

th

to 4

e. What are the patterns in 1

grade students’ system reasoning about

ecosystems with respect to relating the effect of biotic or abiotic factors on the
rest of the food web? (systemic interdependency)
st

th

f. What are the patterns in 1 to 4 grade students’ system reasoning in identifying
key factors in ecosystem? (systemic analysis)
st

g. What are the patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems reasoning in

constructing a complex food web? (circular connectivity)
st

h. What are the patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems reasoning about

recycling of matter? (dynamic recycling)

23

st

th

st

th

2. How is 1 to 4 graders’ reasoning similar or different across each grade level, gender or
ability?
3. How is 1 to 4 graders’ reasoning across the various system categories correlated?
st

th

4. Where do 1 to 4 graders learn about ecological relationships?

Setting
This study took place in a Midwestern suburban school in which 71.22% of the students
are white, 10.76% are Hispanic, 7.27% are African American, 5.23% are Asian, and 5% are
American Indian, American Hawaiian or a mixture of two races. The school also had 30.72%
economically disadvantaged students (data available at https//www.mischooldata.org). When I
asked the teachers about the socioeconomic status of the families in the district, all mentioned
that school is mainly middle and low-middle class. As one teacher puts it:
Compared to Lansing, Huron Valley or Detroit, this school is definitely
considered more wealthy, but compared to Okemos, Birmingham, or West
Bloomfield, it’s not even close. This area is just okay; it’s still farming, working
class, manufacture, we’ve got some of the Michigan State parents but at least half
of the parents of the kids I teach are blue collar working class parents. (Interview
with second grade teacher)
I was in contact with teachers in this school for almost a year before starting data
collection. I met one teacher during educational events and then slowly began to participate in
cultural activities and build close relations with the teachers, the principal, the students and some
parents. This relationship built trust, which was an important foundation for my research.

24

Participants
Students
Each class (grades1-4) included approximately 24 students. After gathering permission
st

th

from parents, I interviewed 10 to 12 students from each of the 1 through 4 grades. The total
sample was total of 44 students, with a total of 20 males and 22 females. Teachers also identified
2

the achievement of students. I gave each student a code to protect students’ identities, so for
example, S1G4M refers to Student 1 in grade 4 who is a male (see Table 1 for the details of the
student sample):
Table 1: Student Sample (N=44)

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Total

High
1M, 2F
4M, 1F
2M
2M, 1F
13

Middle
2M, 4F
1M, 4F
2M, 4F
3M, 3F
23

Low
1M, 2F
1M, 1F
1M,1F
1F
8

Total
12 (4M, 8 F)
12 (6M, 6 F)
10 (5M, 5F)
10 (5M, 5F)
N=44(20M. 22F)

Teachers
The four female teachers were experienced elementary teachers, each having taught
lower elementary school for more than 10 years. Although this study is primarily about students,
I have attempted to understand the students’ achievement from the teachers’ points of view.
Therefore, throughout data collection, I checked with the teachers on how specific students may
have come up with their ideas. For example, when I found that a student mentioned that she
learned a topic from the teacher, I asked the teacher about it. Moreover, knowing that the

2

Note that categorizing students by high, middle or low was mainly dependent on the teacher’s
judgments of students reading and math achievement and not necessarily their science
knowledge. Later in the results section I show that there were cases that the teacher’s judgments
did not match what the students’ answers were.
25

teachers knew their students very well, I consulted with them about specific answers that the
students gave and whether it would be a good idea to talk further to those students’ parents. In
addition to having conversations with the teachers regarding the students, I also had formal
interviews with the teachers that I explain below.
Parents
Even though this study focuses on the 44 students, I found that many students referred to
learning opportunities with their parents. Therefore, I realized that parents would be an important
source of insight concerning students’ sources of knowledge. I started analyzing students’ data to
select interesting cases to pursue and I used “purposive sampling” (Noor, 2008) to select specific
parents. I consulted with teachers about the students and parents to find out who can make an
interesting case. I also strove to have a balanced sample of student with high and modest levels
of reasoning. I ended up selecting eight family members of students who I interviewed: six
mothers of the students, one father of a student, and for one case (S36G1M), I interviewed the
whole family (mother, father, sister and the student).
Data Sources
Curriculum
Knowing that a major source of students’ ideas comes from experiences in school, I made
copies of the science curriculum that they used in order to examine if students were exposed to
ecological concepts in those early grades. All teachers used the Battle Creek Science
3

Curriculum and three teachers mentioned that they teach one to two periods of science per

3

The Battle Creek Science curriculum is provided by the Battle Creek Area math and science
center that provides materials, workshops and activities for the improvement of science and math
teaching in Michigan. Many districts including the school I conducted the study at use the
26

week except for the third grade teacher who mentioned that she integrates science with literacy
and does not necessarily devote time to science alone but prefers to integrate it with other
subjects:
I integrate it so it’s not on …it’s not science on its own. We’re supposed to teach
175 min a week of science, but I integrate it with language art, reading, and
writing. There’s a lot of comparing and contrasting and observations in science
rd
and I integrate that with language and arts as well. (Interview with 3 grade
teacher)
However, all four teachers mentioned the need and the desire to teach more science. One fourth
grade teacher mentioned:
It’s unfortunately cut back into twice a week and 40 min each time much less than
we used to. If you were to ask our district director, she would say that kids learn
very little science nowadays. It’s very sad; I wish I could teach more. (Interview
th
with 4 grade teacher)
In the curriculum three disciplines cut across G1-4 elementary science: life sciences,
physical sciences and earth science. I examined all units that might influence how students
would reason about ecosystems or life sciences more generally. For example, when the topic was
about life cycles, the unit required first graders to observe the life cycle of butterflies (the teacher
showed me the samples of various stages of butterfly that she would use in that unit). Then there
was a worksheet where students can draw the stages and the name of each stage. Except for the
third grade teacher who integrates science, the other teachers mentioned spending somewhere
between 6 to 8 weeks on each unit. Table 2 provides a brief summary of the life science units for
each grade level, and the big ideas of each unit:

science curricula provided by this center. More information about this center can be found at
https://www.bcamsc.org/
27

Table 2: Summary of Life Science Units for G1-4.
Grade 1
Title
of
life An animal’s life
science units
General theme and Life
cycle
of
ideas
animals.
The
teacher
mentioned helping
students identify
living and nonliving things and
towards the end of
the year she takes
them to MSU
garden
and
teaching
them
about butterfly life
cycles

Grade 2
A plants’ life
The plant’s life
and needs for
growth.
The
teacher
mentioned having
them experiment
what plants need
to
grow
and
manipulating
variables such as
water, sunlight in
order to identify
what plants need
to grow

Grade 3
Organisms
have
character
Classification of
animals.
The
teacher
mentioned helping
them classify but
she said that she
usually integrated
that with language
and arts and did
not teach them the
topic separately

Grade 4
Organisms
and
their environment
Animals and their
habitats.
The
teacher
mentioned that this
unit
is
about
ecosystems
and
having them learn
about energy and
matter transfer in
the ecosystem in
addition
to
organism
interdependency

Note that 4th grade covers ecology. I asked the teachers about what they do in the unit.
The fourth grade teacher mentioned that during the last academic year (2010-2011), they did not
cover that unit and that she expects that she will not cover it again for the year of this study
(2011-2012). The reasons were lack of time towards the end of the year and the fact that they
still be working on other science units. Therefore, when I interviewed the sample of students,
none of the students, including 4th graders, had formal instruction about ecosystems. However,
they did have some experience with other aspects of life science that might influence their
understandings and reasoning abilities in ecosystems.
Student interviews
The main data sources in this study were students’ responses to questions about several
scenarios concerning ecosystems.

Southerland et al. (2000) discussed the importance of

interviews and the wealth of information they provide about student understanding:
28

To build thick descriptions of students’ conceptual frameworks, researchers have
turned to more descriptive tools, such as the structured interview, in which we ask
students to explain their understanding in their own words and/or apply that
knowledge in selected task. (p. 72)
In addition to finding out about students’ “conceptual frameworks,” interviews are
preferred to written assessments for students at a very young age. Stromen (1995) discovered
st

that interviews can elicit more student ideas than drawings, and when he compared 1 graders’
ideas about forests in drawings and interviews, he found that interviews produced richer data.
Similarly, Grotzer and Bell (2003) used only interviews to study 3rd grade students’ causal
reasoning about ecology. Knowing that my sample constituted for early elementary students and
my goal was to understand how students reason about the ecosystem, semi-structured interviews
were used.
Southerland et al. (2000) classified interviews into “interviews about instances,” “sorting
interviews,” “problem solving,” and “prediction interviews.” Knowing that my goal was to
understand students’ systemic reasoning, I had several questions in which I asked them to predict
what would happen to the system under certain circumstances. This made my interviews lean
towards these “prediction” interviews that are very useful in understanding the reasoning of
students. Southerland et al. (2000) state,
Prediction interviews require students to anticipate an outcome of a situation and
explain or justify that prediction. The strength of this kind of interview is that it
focuses on the ways students apply their personal meanings of the concept. Unlike
interviews about instances, which require students to explain a concept, prediction
interviews emphasize the application of that knowledge. And because they require
application, prediction interviews are very useful in teasing out what has been
learned by rote with minimal understanding from what is meaningful knowledge.
(pp. 76-77)
Each interview (see Appendices I & II) consisted of several parts or scenarios and took
place in a quiet room and lasted 35 to 45 minutes. I had conducted a pilot study in order to test
29

these questions in May 2011. In this pilot study, I interviewed three students from each grade (14) and pilot tested the questions in order to find out whether the questions made sense to young
children and whether students could answer them. As a result, I modified many questions and
included others that showed to be useful in eliciting students’ thinking.
The final interview consisted of different scenarios which all were designed to understand
students’ systems reasoning of species interaction and sources of knowledge that they build their
4

ideas from. Table 3 summarizes how clusters of interview questions address the research
question related to systemic reasoning and sources of knowledge:
Table 3: Addressing the Various Research Questions Thorough Interview Questions.
System Property/ Sources of Subset questions of Research
knowledge
Question
st
th
Systemic Interdependency
What are the patterns in 1 to 4
grade students’ system reasoning
about ecosystems with respect to
relating the effect of biotic or abiotic
factors on the rest of the food web?

Interview questions
Scenario I (effect of changing
specific populations on others
food web): 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 17

Systemic Analysis

st
What are the patterns in the 1 to Scenario I (Detection importance
of producers and sunlight
th
4
graders’ system reasoning in energy): 3,4
identifying key factors in the food
web?

Circular connectivity

st
What are the patterns in the 1 to Scenario II, (constructing an
interconnected food web) 3, 4, 5
th
4 graders’ systems reasoning in
constructing a complex food web?

Dynamic recycling

st
What are the patterns in the 1 to
th
4 graders’ systems reasoning about
recycling of matter?
st
th
Where do 1 to 4 graders learn
about systems reasoning in ecology?

Sources of knowledge

4

Scenario I: (matter recycling
through decomposition):13, 14,
15, 16
Scenario I: 21 22, 23, 24, 25,
Scenario II, 7.

Note that that when I refer to Scenario I question, I am referring to Appendix I-B where the
picture is with the arrows, because they are the more specific questions. Moreover, the interview
question numbers refer to the number of the question in the interview scenarios.
30

The first scenario consists of questions that gather data about students’ systems reasoning
and where they had been exposed to this topic before. Therefore, I presented students with the
picture of an ecosystem without the arrows and asked them general questions that started a
conversation about the picture, such as where they have seen it in real life and what relations
existed before showing them the arrows. This is designed to reveal their intuitive ideas without
any prompting. After that, I showed them the same picture with the arrows and I asked them
specific questions about the relationships of populations, and what would happen to the
ecosystem if some of populations in the picture disappeared or died. I also asked them where
they learned about species interactions before. The questions attempted to gather information
about students’ systemic interdependency (how one elements affects others in an ecosystem),
systemic analysis (essential element of ecosystem) and dynamic recycling (recycling of matter in
an ecosystem). The whole scenario with all the interview questions and figures is found in
Appendix I (A & B), but I illustrate in Figure 1 the picture that I showed the students and in
Table 4 two questions about the picture for each of the three categories of systemic reasoning.

31

Figure 1: Picture Used in Systemic Reasoning Question. For interpretation of the references to
color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this
dissertation.

Table 4: Summary of Questions Representing Three Category of Systemic Reasoning.
Systemic interdependency
Systemic analysis
Dynamic recycling
1- What would happen if all
1- What is the most
1- If the fox died, what
insects died?
important element that
would happen to its body
over time?
allows this system to be
2- What would happen if all
working properly?
black birds died?
2- If the fish died, what
2- Do you think something
would happen to its body
is missing in this system?
over time?

The second scenario consisted of students constructing a food web allowed me to probe
students’ circular connectivity of the systems reasoning. The picture of the question has been
used by Leach et al. (1995) as illustrated in Figure 2 below:

32

Figure 2: Scenario Question for Probing the Circular Connectivity Category.

The original form of this question involved choosing six of those organisms that could
live together for a long period of time without needing anything, and the second question was to
choose the population which is highest in number. When piloting the scenario, I found that
students were often confused restricting themselves to picking six organisms only. Therefore, I
decided to use the organisms but modify the question in order to help me elicit the students’
“circular connectivity” about the system. I cut out each organism in the picture and put in an
envelope then I presented the envelope to students. Then I asked them to make up an
environment that can work properly and for that purpose I asked them to choose as many animals
or plants as they want that can live in place with sun, clouds ,water, and earth. The students then
had to choose the populations and this part of the interview was similar to a think aloud because
often they were justifying their choice as they were performing the activity. After they finished
choosing, I asked them follow up questions about the environment such as why they left out
some organisms and chose other which helped them elaborate on what they were talking about.
Appendix II shows all the questions for the circular connectivity questions.
In both scenarios, I probed students several times about where they learned about the
topic and about their relevant experiences. This allowed me to gather information about the
33

students’ sources of knowledge. In addition to the formal interview questions, when I found that
students were providing interesting information about the science content, I asked them about
where they learned about this specific information.
Teacher interviews
In addition to interviewing students, I also interviewed each teacher for 25 to 30 minutes
about several topics, such as the science curriculum they teach, the amount of science they teach,
the science homework they give, and from where certain students get ideas. This interview was
semi-structured and I used the questions in Appendix III as guidelines.
Parents’ interviews
Yin (2011) discusses the importance of case studies in educational research and classifies
case studies into three categories: descriptive, explanatory and exploratory. Knowing that my
study is descriptive and explanatory in the sense it attempts to describe the learning and explain
where students acquire their ideas about this topic, I have used mini case studies to help me shed
light on students’ ideas and sources of knowledge. To do that, I conducted semi-structured
interviews with family members of eight students (two from each grade level) to learn more
about students’ sources of knowledge. The interviews had questions concerning general activities
parents do with their children, the learning style of their children and the way they see
themselves influencing their children’s education, specifically science education.

After the

general questions, I then quoted certain sections from the student’s interview and asked if they
knew how their child got this information. This part was different with each parent. There were
three parents for whom I had interviewed two of their children from different grades and for
those parents I also asked about the differences between their two children. An example of one

34

th

st

parent’s interview where I interviewed both of her daughters (4 grade and 1 grade students) is
shown in Appendix IV.
Analytic Techniques
To analyze the data, I first coded the interview questions in an iterative process that
allowed me to construct the learning progression, and then I used quantitative and qualitative
methods to answer the various research questions. Table 5 summarizes the data sources and
analytic techniques for each research question before I discuss those in detail:
Table 5: Summary of Data Sources and Analytic Techniques for Each Research Question.
Research Question
What
are
the

learning
st
th
progression levels in 1 to 4
grade students’ system reasoning
about ecosystems?

Data sources
Interview questions of the four
categories of system reasoning in
scenario I and II in the student
interviews.

Analytic techniques
Qualitative technique: Iterative
coding and qualitative inter-rater
reliability check in order to
construct
the
learning
progression of the four categories
of systemic reasoning.
Quantitative technique:
Cronbach alpha to check for
reliability within and across
systemic reasoning categories.

35

Table 5 (cont’d)
st th
How is 1 -4 graders’ reasoning Interview questions of the four
categories of system reasoning in
across and within the various
scenario I and II in the student
system categories correlated?
interviews.

Quantitative technique:
Rank correlation method to
determine if there is correlation
between grade and learning
progression levels.
st
th
Interview questions of the four Qualitative technique:
How are 1 - 4
graders’
categories of system reasoning in I used qualitative constant
reasoning similar or different
scenario I and II in the student comparative method to look for
across each grade with respect to
students consistency
interviews.
the two questions above?

st th
Where do 1 - 4 graders learn Questions about sources of
knowledge in the student
about ecological relationships?
interview
in
addition
to
interviews with eight parents and
teacher interviews.

Quantitative technique:
Rank correlation method to find
out if there is a correlation across
various
systemic
reasoning
categories and within the
categories.
Qualitative Technique:
I used constant comparative
method and triangulation of data
sources
from
students’
interviews, parents’ interviews
and teachers’ interviews

Iterative Coding
After finishing the interviews, I transcribed all the interviews verbatim. Then I organized
each interview into sections that correspond to each category of systemic reasoning. I also had a
section where students talked about where they know about the topic. This made the data easier
to locate in order to code each section. An example of the interview transcript for S23G2M is
included in Appendix V. The four systemic elements identified by Chandler and Boutilier (1992)
were systemic interdependency, systemic analysis, circular connectivity and dynamic recycling.
Those elements were translated into interview questions that required students to think of
population changes (systemic interdependency), importance of plants and sunlight (systemic
analysis), food web construction (circular connectivity), and recycling of matter (dynamic
recycling). The first rubric I worked with was derived from the literature and from a small pilot
study that I had conducted. I used the rubric as a coding scheme, and I specified a lower and
36

upper “anchor,” as has been customary in the learning progression research (Mohan et al, 2009;
Mohan & Plummer 2012). Appendix VI shows this initial rubric whereby the lower anchor
stipulated anthropomorphic or aesthetic reasoning (e.g., “if the worms disappear the nature will
become not beautiful”) and the upper anchor was derived from scientific explanation for each
concept (e.g., “if the worms disappear, the food chain would not work, it would get ruined,
because chameleon cannot eat grass, then chameleon dies, then whatever eats the chameleon dies
finally all would die). I first coded a small sample of the interviews using the initial rubric and
then changed the rubric accordingly. Gotwals and Alonzo (2012) mention the importance of
incorporating the top-down and bottom-up approaches in learning progression research:
As part of the top down design approach to learning progressions, scientists and
science educators select the big ideas from the core knowledge needed for
understanding socio-scientific issues and achieving scientific literacy. However,
this logical decomposition of big ideas may not necessarily reveal the paths
students take as they learn scientific content. Therefore the bottom up design
approach to learning progressions promotes the organization of content based on
students’ thinking as they develop more sophisticated understanding. (p. 4)
As such, my initial rubric (top-down approach) was complemented with the bottom up
approach and was iteratively revised as a result of emerging findings and with several
discussions with my advisor to refine this scheme. During the discussion sessions, my advisor
and I went over the various levels with different examples for each level and discussed whether
the levels need revisions or further sub-categorization or merging of categories. After every
session, I revised the rubric and recoded the data accordingly.

This method is common in

learning progression research (Jin & Anderson, 2012), which stipulates that constructing a final
learning progression takes many rounds of investigations to refine the codes, and it is aligned
with the constant comparative method that Strauss & Corbin (1998) advocate for in qualitative
research. I illustrate this method by one example from the lowest anchor. Although I had

37

originally identified the lowest anchor to be anthropomorphic, I found during coding that many
students reasoning was neither anthropomorphic nor simple causal reasoning. It was a different
way of reasoning that took into account practical implications of any changes and not necessarily
systemic ones. I discussed this with my advisor and we agreed that this level fell in between
anthropomorphic and simple causal reasoning, and therefore I identified that as level 1.5 and
called it concrete or practical reasoning. I illustrate this by the following example from systemic
analysis questions:
I: Which is the most important population in this picture?
S1G4M: Maybe the spider because it eats moth and moths eat our shirts.
The above answer shows the student is reasoning practically and although he recognizes
what the spider feeds on, he relates that to the practical interest of the preventing moths from
eating the shirts. Someone may argue that this reasoning could be related to anthropomorphic
reasoning, but there were no human characteristics or aesthetic values, it was a reasoning that
was related the practical benefit or interest of not having moths eat the shirt. This reasoning was
not related to the ecosystem but it was not exactly related to anthropomorphic reasoning and this
why I labeled it as level 1.5.
In addition to this emerging level, I also found qualitative subcategories within each
level. A more elaborate discussion of the learning progression is presented in the results sections
where I present the final learning progression constructs, which is the fourth iteration of the
learning progression from the starting rubric. Note that each time I revised the rubric; I went
back and recoded the data using the revised rubric.

38

Reliability
In order to check for reliability, I have used quantitative and qualitative methods. In the
quantitative method, I used Cronbach’s alpha to check for internal consistency of the questions.
In the qualitative method, my colleague and I coded the 30% of the data and discussed them.
To check for internal consistency of the questions, I used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in
which a score of 0.700 is considered high and indicates good consistency of the questions for a
certain construct. The internal consistency for the entire interview was α=0.821 which means that
the interview had high reliability in measuring students knowledge about systemic reasoning of
the ecosystems. After that the interview was broken down into questions that belonged to each
representative element of systemic synthesis. I used Cronbach’s alpha to test for internal
consistency for each cluster of questions. The result of this revealed that the question that
required students to construct their own environment and justify their choice was the only one
that could represent this circular connectivity category. Other questions that might have belonged
to this category were questions that required students to pick an animal and talk about its needs
for living. However, in those questions, students mentioned general ideas like food or shelter
without connecting to the ecosystem. For this reason, the question concerning the construction of
the environment allowed me to gather more information about the circular connectivity element
of systemic reasoning. The two questions about asking about the most important element of the
system was and what was missing of the system resulted in low Cronbach alpha of α=0.150
which means I considered those questions separately for comparisons. The consistency for the
six questions for systemic interdependency (what would happen to the ecosystem if one

39

5

population disappeared? And what would happen if poison was sprayed ) was α= 0.725 and the
consistency for the four dynamic recycling questions (What happens to the body of organisms
when they die) was α=0.702. This means that there was high consistency for those set of
questions targeting the systemic interdependency and dynamic recycling.
With regard to qualitative method for checking for reliability, I first coded two students
from each grade (n = 8) by myself after revising the rubric as a result of discussions with my
advisor. Following that, I asked a colleague who is an assistant professor in science education in
a different university to code 2 interviews and we re-discussed the rubric after which I revised
the rubric again. After that we both recoded 4 interviews and I revised the rubric again and
discussed it with my advisor. After having the final rubric, my colleague and I coded 30% of the
data (n =12 students, three students from each grade). We discussed the coding and we had an
agreement of over 85% in coding of the interview responses. The differences were resolved
through discussions. I illustrate the differences in opinion and how we resolved the differences in
the following excerpt:
I: If you were to create your own environment having water sun clouds and soil, choose
some of those organisms (Referring to Figure 2) that can live there in such a way that the
environment is working well for a while?
S42G1M: I would choose squirrel, fish, frog, trees, bushes, worms and bunnies,
and I would have flowers and bugs, the hawk and the bird.
I: Why did you choose those?
S: I chose the flower because that plant eaters like bunnies and birds can eat the
plants. I chose the fish just in case we have water so we have something to put in
it, I chose worms so that fish can eat, and I chose the frog because can take care
of the bad bugs, the bad ones such as the spider. I chose the squirrel so that there’s

5

Note that I first considered the question about the poison with dynamic recycling, but the
answers of the students showed the levels were more related to systemic synthesis because they
were thinking of direct of more indirect populations at the macroscopic level without really
tracing matter. Moreover, when I changed this question from dynamic recycling to systemic
synthesis, the Cronbach’s alpha for both the dynamic recycling and systemic synthesis increased.
40

a lot more trees than there really is. And I chose the hawk to make sure there’s no
other hawks.
I: what do you mean no other hawk?
S42G1M: actually two birds
I: What do you mean by two birds?
S42G1M: I mean that I would like to have the small bird and the hawk as well, I
would like to have two have birds in his nature.
My colleague coded the excerpt above as level 3 in circular connectivity because the
student was able to relate the populations to the habitat and to what they feed on. I coded the
excerpt as level 3 and level 1 because I argued that the student mentioning that “taking care of
bad bugs” means that he is still reasoning anthropomorphically due to a personal dislike of the
bugs. My colleague argued that the words “bad bug” could be taken in context and that indeed
the frogs eat the insects, but I argued that even if this is true, the choice of frog was dependent on
personal liking and not on what he naturally the environment should have. My colleague was
convinced and we settled to code this as 3a and 1a. Similar differences in coding were resolved
through this kind of discussion.
Using rank correlation to examine consistency
To check for the correlation of students’ ideas among the various systems thinking
categories, I used rank correlation method (Cohen et al., 2003). There were 13 questions that
were relevant for the analysis: One question represented circular connectivity category and
required students to choose the populations that can live together in an environment that function
well. Two questions represented the systemic analysis category and they required students to
choose of the most important element of the system and of what may be missing in the system;
six questions represented systemic interdependency and required students to talk what would
happen if one population was removed or poison was introduced to the ecosystem; and five
questions represented the dynamic recycling category and required students to talk about the
41

what would happen to the body of some organisms when they died. The average was calculated
for the set of questions representing systemic interdependency and dynamic recycling and was
used in correlations with other categories. In addition, I used the rank correlation method to
check for students’ consistency within each category of systemic reasoning, particularly in the
categories of systemic interdependency and dynamic recycling.
After finding correlations, I also used the constant comparative method to identify
examples for students who were consistent in their thinking within and across levels and those
who were not. To do this, I looked at examples to see if a student has the same learning
progression level across all the answers to the questions or not. A representation of this will be
presented in more detail in the results chapter.
Using qualitative triangulation to examine sources of knowledge
In addition to the learning progression levels, I also attempted to find out where students
obtained their ideas. For this, I identified the different sources mentioned by all 44 students.
Then I zoomed in at the eight cases and triangulated information from students, teachers, and
parents (Yin, 2011). I illustrate this activity in Table 6 below:
Table 6: Sample of Triangulating Data to Find Out About Students’ Sources of Knowledge.
Student S9G4F
I: have you read books
or movies?
S: I watch Animal
Planet a lot and I’ve
read a lot of books
S: what books
I: I like the book
“warriors” book series
it’s about pets in the
forest that eat rabbits
squirrels
birds
and
sometimes they eat fish

Teacher
She is always
interested
in
animals
so
I
connected her with
some research with
MSU and she
researched about
dogs

Parent
She researched "general"
information about Golden
Retriever dogs in books at our
school library. Then she
researched the internet for
pictures. After that she
collected the information, she
created a poster with pictures
and various facts about Golden
Retrievers.

42

My Comments
The teacher evaluated
her as a high achiever
but during her interview
I found that she
exhibited
various
abilities with different
questions so she was
high in the circular
connectivity
category
and middle in systemic
synthesis and systemic
analysis.

Table 6 (cont’d)
She is always happy to read by
herself hat is a science fiction
or fantasy but the characters
are cats, and their warriors
because the groups are divided
into clans and how they fight
each other and how they
survive and how they compete.
I have done many activities
with her but it was never part
of direct instruction or planned
activity

Her mother mentioned
that there is not direct
instruction at home and
there did not appear to
be a direct relation
between her informal
experiences and her
answers in the different
interview

After constructing a similar table for each of the 8 cases, I examined the emerging ideas
for each student that described their sources of knowledge and how these sources were or were
not related to their interview responses.
Accommodating for Differences between the Researcher and the Participants
Knowing that I come from a culture different from the students, it was important for me
to make sure that I can understand the students’ “world.” This was especially important since I
was also investigating their “sources of knowledge,” which –is culturally specific I used various
strategies to engage in the young students’ culture. These included:
1- Watching several movies and TV shows that helped me understand what the kids
watch: I watched movies like Lion King, episodes of Peep and the Big Wide World,
Magic School Bus, and Wild Kratts. During this time, I tried to understand the cartoon
characters and the information that those movies convey. For example I specifically
watched an episode of the Magic School Bus that was about a food chain in a marine
ecosystem. Even though the characters were not real humans or animals, many of the
students I interviewed referred to this TV show and so I was able to relate to what
they are talking about once interviewed them.
43

2- Visiting Impression 5 Museum: many students referred to Impression 5 during the
interview, so I visited the museum in Lansing and interviewed one of the instructors
about what they do with the students concerning the food web and food chain. The
instructor explained that they have classes that align with their philosophy of “play
and create” whereby they prepare activities for students to explore. Concerning the
food chain topic, they model long food chains using Russian dolls called
“Matrioshka” which is big doll which has several dolls inside and each one inside the
other represents what the animal eats. Moreover, there was a section concerning the
ecosystem with animal discs and arrows and the children can sit and create their own
food chains and webs. The visit to this museum helped me understand what students
were referring to when they mentioned Impression 5 and I could have a conversation
of what they did there because I knew what was in the museum.
3- Talking to the parents: Even though the parents were participants in the study, I had a
chance to ask them several questions that I felt needed clarification. For example,
while discussing with one parent that her child watched Wild Cats, the mother
explained to me about this Disney movie was about, she was also explaining to me
about the history of some shows such as Peep and the Big Wide World and Curious
George which is very similar to the Peep. Those kinds of conversations with the
parents helped me understand what American children are exposed to such as movies,
TV shows, books and other resources.
4- Data sharing sessions with my advisor: While I was working on the data and even
after the data were collected, I met regularly with my advisor and we discussed the
data and what the students are saying. Knowing that my advisor is a native who has

44

young children of her own, we had discussions about what the students were saying
and about the various media or books that are popular.
Having put effort into engaging not only in research but in the culture of the children, I
believe that by the time I was analyzing data, I was reflecting on the various experiences I had,
and was trying to make connections with the various resources that the children were referring
too. I do not claim to have exhausted learning about all the resources, but I believe that my
efforts allowed me to make sense of what the students were referring to in most of the cases.
This chapter consisted of describing the research design of my study. I started the chapter
by describing the setting, the participants and the various data sources that I used in my research.
I then described how I coded the data in an iterative process, attended to reliability, and used
various qualitative and quantitative tools to analyze the data. I also described how I attended to
my background as an individual from a different cultural setting from my participants. In the
next chapter I present the results of my data analysis techniques to the various research questions
that I posed.

45

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
In this chapter, I present the findings related to each of the four research questions I
proposed. I start by presenting the final learning progression levels, illustrating each level with
examples, and then I present the frequencies of responses in each level. Next I present the
correlations and qualitative analysis that answer the questions of students’ consistency across the
various systemic reasoning. I, then, present the results of analyzing the data for students’ sources
of knowledge. I end with detailed description of eight student cases where I interviewed parents
and looked more closely at the students’ sources of knowledge.
st

Results of Research Question 1: What are patterns in 1

th

to 4

grade students’ systems

reasoning about ecosystems?
To answer this question, I first present a short summary of the four elements of systemic
reasoning which are the following:
1- Systemic interdependency

6

(SI): This category of systemic reasoning addresses

understanding that each element in the system influences all others. The set of
questions that allowed me to evaluate students reasoning of this category were related
to asking students what may happen if one population was removed from the system.
2- Systemic Analysis (SA):

This category of systemic reasoning addresses

understanding that there are certain elements of the system that are essential for the
system to keep working. In case of the ecosystem, the sunlight and the plants as
producers are the main elements, without which the whole system will collapse. The
6

Note that the original name by Chandler and Boutilier (1992) for this category was systemic
synthesis, but the idea of “synthesis” may be confused semantically with creating something
rather than analyzing the effect of the changing one population of the ecosystem. For this reason
I substituted the word synthesis for “interdependency”.
46

interview question asking students about the most important element of the system
and the question concerning what is missing in the picture are the two questions that
allowed me to evaluate students’ reasoning of this category.
3- Circular Connectivity (CC): This category of systemic reasoning addresses
understanding of the criteria of building a system from the various elements and the
criteria students used to build this system. The question that allowed me to evaluate
students’ understanding of this category was the one when they were give separate
pictures and they had to build their environment and say why they were choosing the
populations they picked.
4- Dynamic Recycling (DR): This category of systemic reasoning addresses the
understanding of matter recycling in the ecosystem, specifically understanding that
once organisms are decomposed, matter is recycled. The set of questions that address
this category required students to reason about what would happen to animal bodies
or plants once they die.
Presentation of the Learning Progression with Illustrations
After several iterations of the learning progression rubric, the final learning progression is
presented in Table 7. Levels 2 and 3 in systemic interdependency have sub-levels and level 2 in
circular connectivity also has sub-levels. Examples of each level and sub-level are presented
after Table 7.

47

Table 7: Final Learning Progression for Systemic Reasoning of Ecology.
Systemic
Interdependency
(e.g., What would
happen if all insects
died
in
the
ecosystem?)

Anthropomorphic or
Aesthetic
Reasoning
(Relating
reasoning
about
populations
to
human
feelings or to
beauty
of
nature)
Concrete or
Practical
Reasoning
(Reasoning
based
on
everyday
experiences
and
observations)

Level
1

Identifying
intentional
and
human characteristic
or aesthetic reasons
as effects to the
change of population
without any reference
to
external
mechanism

Level
1.5

Identifying concrete
or practical effects to
population change /
Relating the poison to
the death of the
animal the consumes
it only

Systemic Analysis
(e.g., What is the
most
important
element in the
ecosystem
that
allows
it
to
function
properly?)
Identifying
an
irrelevant element
in the ecosystem as
the most important
due to the feeling of
power / identifying
the missing element
due to personal
liking

Circular
Connectivity
(e.g., Choose the
populations that can
make
an
environment
that
works properly for
a while)
Relating their choice
of
populations
human relations or
personal liking of
those populations

Dynamic Recycling
(e.g., What would happen
to the body of the fox once
it dies?)

Identifying
an
important element
because they see a
lot of it in nature /
Identifying
elements that are
missing
because
they are part of the
nature they see
everyday

Relating their choice
of populations
to
being part the nature
they see in their
everyday life

Relating what happens to a
dead animal to what they
see in real life, such as
disappearing,
rotting
without further elaboration

48

Relating what happens to a
dead animal to spiritual or
human feelings

Table 7 (cont’d)
Simple
Level
Causal
2
Reasoning
(Beginning to
identify
an
external
mechanism
that is related
to
phenomena)

2a- Identifying a
direct effect on ONE
population that feeds
on
the
removed
population/ Relating
the effect of the
poison to the loss of
food source of other
animals OR death of
the animals the eat
the poisoned animal
OR
Identifying the direct
effect on the ONE
population that they
themselves feed on
2b Identifying ONE
sided
mutualistic
relationship between
and
producers
primary consumers

Identifying
a
reason
that
is
logically
sound
(e.g., plants giving
oxygen) but is not
related to energy
for the importance
of plants or another
population

2aRelating their
choice to the habitat
that the populations
live in

2bRelating their choice
to a ONE way eating
relationship
like
squirrel eats nuts
A
B

49

Relating what happens to a
dead animal to ONE
external factor such as soil
or predation by another
organism

Table 7(cont’d)
SemiLevel
complex
3
Causal:
Reasoning
(Reasoning
that
takes
into account
more
than
one external
factor
affecting
phenomena

3a- Identifying the
effect of a population
removal to more than
one population that
feed on it
OR
Identifying the effect
of
a
population
removal to more than
one population that it
feeds on/
Relating the effect of
the poison to the
death
of
other
animals that eat the
poisoned
animal
AND loss of food
source
for
other
animals
3b- Identifying the
effect of population
removal
to
the
population that feeds
on it AND the
population that it
feeds on
OR
Identifying
of
a
mutualistic relation
that benefits both
populations.

Identifying
two
reasons to justify
their choice of the
importance
of
plants of another
populations
OR
identifying
two
populations with a
logical reason for
each

50

Relating their choice
to the habitat they
live in AND
the
organisms they feed
on

Relating what happens to a
dead animal to more than
one factor such as worms
and fungus or soil and air

Table 7(cont’d)
Complex
Level
Causal
4
reasoning
(Reasoning
that
considers a
network
of
relations
which
recognizes
the
complexity in
an ecosystem

Identifying the weblike relationship in
the ecosystem and
that one change in
one population will
influence the all other
populations in the
ecosystem
e.g.
E

Identifying
the
critical importance
of sunlight and
plants because they
are the primary
producers of energy
in the ecosystem

Relating their choice
to the network of
feeding relationships
of populations of the
organisms
that
constitute a food web
in the ecosystem
E
A

A

B

B

C
D

D
Relating the effect of
the poison to being
transferred
in the
whole food web from
one population to
another

51

C

Relating what happens to a
dead
animal
to
the
breakdown of matter that
can be used by other
organisms or can be
recycled in the ecosystem

Having presented the general levels in Figure 8, I now present a description of each level
with examples to illustrate reasoning at each level. I have chosen to give examples of different
questions, specifically when there were a set of questions that address a given category (e.g.,
systemic interdependency), in order to present how each level was revealed with different
questions during the interview.
Level 1: Anthropomorphic reasoning.
Level 1 represents anthropomorphic reasoning, where students refer to organisms based
on human characteristics or personal liking. At this level of reasoning, there was no reference to
any external mechanism or cause. Therefore, this was the lower anchor of the learning
progression and it was demonstrated along all four categories of the system. Table 8 shows
examples of anthropomorphic reasoning.
7

Table 8: Level 1-Anthropomorphic Reasoning .
Systemic
Interdependency
sample question

Systemic
analysis Circular connectivity Dynamic
recycling
sample question
sample question
sample question

Which population is
What would happen the most important in
if all foxes died?
keeping
the
environment
working
properly?

If you were to create When the fish dies,
your own environment what would happen to
having
water,
sun, its body over time?
clouds and soil, choose
some
of
those
organisms that can live
there in such a way that
the environment is
working well for a
while?

7

The italics explain why the answer is anthropomorphic. The same is true for Tables 9, 10, 11,
12, where italicized sentences explain why the answer is considered at that specific level.
52

Table 8 (cont’d)
S14G3M Answer:
the
foxes
have
families
too
and
whoever cares about
them they would be
sad
I: Will other animals?
S: If the possum tells
his family about it,
that would be very
sad
(This
is
anthropomorphic
reasoning because it
stems
from
transferring human
feeling to animals)

S43G1F Answer:
The fox because it is
very strong (The human
characteristic
of
strength was the main
reasoning why the fox is
important
in
the
ecosystem)

S11G3F Answer:
Frog, squirrels, fish,
bird, bunnies
Because I really love
frogs and my dad loves
fish and the squirrels are
so cute and birds I like
to watch them fly and
bunnies are so cute
(Personal liking is the
reason of the choice)

S21G2F Answer:
All the other fishes
would gather around
and will dig a hole and
call their friends and
they
would
make
friends carry it and bury
it and make a grave
(Human habits were
transferred to animals)

Table 8 (cont’d)
Level 1.5: Concrete or practical reasoning based on everyday experiences.
At this level of reasoning, the students still do not utilize an external mechanism that
consider underlying causes of the event, but at the same time do not relate the reasoning to
personal liking of human characteristics. Their reasoning stems from their everyday experiences
or observations. They assume a pattern for events to keep occurring similar to what they are used
to and so they cannot use any further reason for explaining the effect. Even though this reasoning
does not include personal feelings as in anthropomorphic reasoning, it also does not consider any
external mechanism that governs the dynamic process of ecosystem change. At this level the
only external cause is either the status quo or a cause that is related to practical interests.
Moreover, for this level, there were two kinds of answers concerning the dynamic recycling
category. As seen in Table 9, the two examples presented were ones that expressed the idea that
nothing will happen to the body or one that was describing the external changes that they are
used to seeing but without relating to any reason except the idea or rotting which is the
macroscopic phenomenon that they observed. Table 9 illustrates examples of this level:
53

Table 9: Level 1.5-Concrete or Practical Reasoning.
Systemic
Interdependency
sample question

Systemic
analysis Circular connectivity Dynamic
recycling
sample question
sample question
sample question

Which one is the most If you were to create What would happen to
What would happen if important in keeping the your own environment the body of the fox
all insects died?
water,
sun, when it dies?
environment
working having
clouds and soil, choose
properly?
some
of
those
organisms that can live
there in such a way that
the environment is
working well for a
while?

S37G1F Answer:
S: New ones will come
I: how?
S: they just get born
again and it keeps
repeating over and over
I: and if they did not
have babies?
S: we wouldn’t see any
more insects because
they’re dead
I: anything else may
happen?
S: no
(The only effect was that
we don’t see the insects
which s is a reasoning
considering
concrete
observations)

S1G4M Answer:
Maybe
the
spider
because it eats moth and
moths eat shirt. Maybe
all of them if someone
is extinct its gone you
can’t see them again (In
this answer, the student
is
thinking
the
importance of animals
to humans so he’s
considering
the
practical importance of
the spider and also
thinking that nature has
many animals so all
maybe important. Both
of those reasoning are
involve practical or
concrete reasoning.

S 33G1F Answer:
S35G2F Answer:
Student picked all the It would stay there
I: How about after one
pictures
month?
I: why did you pick S: it would just be lying
on the ground
them all?
S: because this is like in I:
would
anything
nature and it has many change after one year
animals so the more S: no
animals the better (This (This is the reasoning
answer reveals that the that depends on the
student considers nature concrete observations, if
as she experiences her they’ve seen an animal
everyday
and
her dead on the ground
choices depend on her there’s the assumption it
concrete
experiences will stay there).
with nature without any OR
external
mechanistic S9G4F
S: It would probably
explanation)
just be rotten.
I: why does it become
rotten

54

Table 9 (cont’d)
S: It becomes rotten
because its dead for a
long time and flies
would be buzzing all
over it.
I: why would it rot
S: Because if no animal
ate it and if it’s not
buried it rot
I:what happens if its
buried
S:
it
probably
disappears, or goes in
the ground
(In this example, the
student recognizes the
rotting but does not
identify a reason other
than the fact that it is
not buried or eaten)

Level 2: Simple causal reasoning.
At this level, students begin to use external mechanisms the influence the change in the
ecosystem. However, their thinking is still at a simple level, meaning that they can identify one
external factor that influences ecosystem or one factor that is influenced by a certain change. In
this level, students’ reasoning about the effect of the change was limited to one direct population,
or, for decomposition, was limited to one external factor. Students do not identify when a certain
change happens more than one factor is affected. Moreover, at this level, there were sub-levels
at the systemic interdependency and the circular connectivity categories of systemic reasoning.
Those different sub-categories represent qualitatively different ways of reasoning for each
system reasoning category. For example, in systemic interdependency, there were some students
who recognized the mutualistic relationship between birds and plants, which was different from
feeding relationships and could be considered at a different sub-level from answers that strictly
55

considered feeding relationships. The reason why the sub-categories are part of level 2 is that
they all show that students are considering one external reason in their answers and do not show
signs of thinking of several factors that influence the ecosystem or several effects from on
change on the ecosystem. Table 10 shows examples of each of each category and the subcategories as well.
Table 10: Level 2-Simple Causal Reasoning.
Systemic
Interdependency
sample question

Systemic
analysis Circular connectivity Dynamic
recycling
sample question
sample question
sample question

Which one is the most If you were to create When the fish dies,
What would happen if important in keeping the your own environment what would happen to it
all black birds died?
environment
working having water sun clouds over time?
and soil, choose some of
properly?
those organisms that can
live there in such a way
that the environment is
working well for a
while?
S16G3F: the fox will
probably
eat
more
possum (2a, which is
recognizing the effect on
the direct population)
S24G2M no flowers
because they make more
flowers each time they
eat the nectar (2b which
is recognizing the effect
due to the mutualistic
relationship
between
birds and flowers)

S5G4M: Plants because
they give food for
animals
(Identifying
food as the reason of
importance of plants)

S6G4M: I chose these
that birds sometimes
walk on the ground and
sometimes in the air.
Squirrels are sometimes
on the ground and
sometimes they’re up in
the trees, and rabbits are
around the trees. (2a
because
it
is
considering only the
habitat)

56

S17G3M:
S:It would be bone
I: where would the skin
go?
S: something that would
eat meat will eat it
I: what if nothing ate it?
S: it would disappear
and get rotten
I: any idea how it would
rot?

Table 10 (cont’d)
S20G3F:
I
would
choose
squirrels,
rabbits, fish and frogs.
I: why those
S: Squirrels will eat
nuts in the land, rabbits
will eat grass, fish will
tinier fish in the water,
frogs will eat flies in the
clouds. (2b, because the
reasoning is considering
simple
feeding
relationship
between
two animals.

S: sometimes the sun
can shine at it for two
weeks and it can get
rotten (Identifying one
external reason such as
the sun as the agent of
decomposition)

Note that for dynamic recycling four students out of 44 mentioned that there was a reason
for rotting, but they did not know what it was. For those students, I considered their answers at
level 2 because they do recognize an external reason. Consider the following:
I: what will happen to the body of the fox when it dies?
S34G2M: It will get rotten
I: how?
S34G2M: it will be really be old and super hard to eat
I: what will happen to it after one year?
S34G2M: it will turn into soil, the bones kind of disappear and turn into soil and
the skin gets eaten by worms and it disappear
I: how will it disappears
S34G2M: I don’t know how it disappears but I know that bones disappear in the
soil, I really don’t know the reason I’m still trying to learn that.
Level 3: Semi-complex causal reasoning.
Responses at this level take into account more than one external factor affecting
phenomena. This level shows that students are beginning to consider the complex interactions in
the ecosystem by thinking of various effects or causes. This is the level where students’
responses illustrate an emerging sense of complexity of ecosystems. This means that students
can think of the effect of change on more than one direct population or can think of more than
one external reason for decomposition. However, at this level, students do not consider more
57

than the effect on direct populations; in other words, students do not transfer the influence of
change to further populations in the food web. Table 11 illustrates level 3 examples.
Table 11: Level 3-Causal Reasoning that Takes into Account Two External Factors.
Systemic
Interdependency
sample question

Systemic
analysis Circular connectivity Dynamic
recycling
sample question
sample question
sample question

Which one is the most If you were to create When the fox dies, what
What would happen if important in keeping the your own environment would happen to it over
environment
working having water sun clouds time?
all insects died?
and soil, choose some of
properly
those organisms that can
live there in such a way
that the environment is
working well for a
while?
S22G2M:
Frogs,
beavers and black birds
would have no food and
they would die (level 3a
because
he
is
considering more than
one population that is
affects by the insects)

S16G3F: The bugs
because the bug goes to
the bird and then that
bug would go to the
other bugs. The bugs
because its feeding like
3 animals and goes to
many
animals
(3a
because it is identifying
the
importance
of
insects due to the
different links it has in
the food chain)

S1G4M: Those that eat
insects would starve to
death and those eaten
by insects they would
be overpopulated (level
3b, because he is S3G4F: Water, tree and
thinking up and down grass, because lots of
the food chain)
animals need water
because they need to
drink, they need grass
because some of them
eat the grass and some
animals need the trees
because they live in the
trees. (this is level 3b,
because she is thinking
of more than one reason
for the importance of
plants and more than
element
that
is
important
in
the
ecosystem)

S39G3M: Snake, the
spider and the ant, a
bird, flowers and trees,
some fish, and crabs, I
choose those because
some animals need to
eat the other ones, snake
needs to eat the ant and
spiders and the crab
needs to eat fish, the
birds need to eat spiders
and ants and the some
animals eat flowers and
trees make a little home
(this is level 3 because
the student is thinking of
feeding relations and
the
habitat
that
organisms live in)

58

S7G4F: the owl would
feed on its flesh and
then after longs periods
will be a skeleton.
I: if nothing fed on it?
S: it would rot
I: how would it rot?
S: starts to stink and the
meat would rot
I: why would it rot?
S: after a while it starts
to wore down like
apples
I: is there’s a reason for
that?
S: air and water and
nature starts to wore
them down and after
quite a few years it
would go down in the
dirt because more dirt
gets on top and gets
buried down (level 3
because
it
is
recognizing more than
one element for the
decomposition process)

One may argue that level 3a of systemic interdependency is similar to 2a because both
consider the influence of direct predator-prey relationships. However there were students who
considered the effect on only one population (level 2a) and some that considered the
relationships on several populations (level 3a). Griffiths and Grant (1985) would consider those
as one level because they require the same skill, but Griffiths and Grant’s study was done with
10th grade students and this study was conducted with lower elementary students. For this age
group, the distinction between effect on one direct population and the effect on many direct
populations is important because it helps us tease apart fine divisions of lower levels for primary
grades.
Level 4: Complex causal reasoning.
At this level, students’ responses recognized a network of relations in the ecosystem that
revealed a sense of a more advanced complexity than at level 3 in the system. This is the level
where students considered the interdependency of organisms and identified how most parts of
the system may be affected when a specific change happens in one of its elements. Students
considered changes in the system as a whole and not as separate entities. Table 12 illustrates
examples of this level from sample questions of different categories of system reasoning:
Table 12: Level 4-Causal Reasoning that Considers a Network of Relations.
Systemic
Interdependency
sample question

Systemic
analysis Circular connectivity Dynamic recycling
sample question
sample question
e.g.,
What
would
e.g., Which one is the e.g., If you were to happen to the fox when
What would happen if most
important
in create
your
own it dies?
all plants died?
keeping
the environment
having
environment
working water sun clouds and
properly
soil, choose some of
those organisms that can
live there in such a way
that the environment is
working well?

59

Table 12 (cont’d)
S7G4F: If plants died,
all animals would die,
first it’ll be the bugs,
then the ones that eat
the bugs, then the ones
that eat small animals
and then the big animals
and then and we would
die too because we have
no food (level 4 because
the student is thinking if
the chain of reactions
that influence all the
system)

S23G2M: the most
important part is the
plants because if there
are not plants then
insects cannot eat and if
no insects then other
animals cannot eat and
then all would die (level
4 because the student is
thinking of series of
effects that affect every
population
in
the
system)

S45G4M:
flower, No answers were found
spiders, snakes need at level 4
spiders so we can put
snakes, birds,
frogs,
fish, insects we can put
them all together
I: why did you choose
those?
S: Because they can eat
each other and get their
needs from each other
I: what do you mean?
S: I mean birds can eat
from the flowers, snakes
can eat birds and spiders
and frogs can eat insects
and spiders can eat
insects (level 4 because
the student is thinking of
the several food chains
and the web-like model
of the ecosystem)

As shown in Table 12, there were representatives of level 4 in three of the four elements
of systemic reasoning. There were no level 4 responses in the category of dynamic recycling –
where students were asked to predict what would happen to the body of the organisms when they
die. An important caveat here is the level of sophistication of level 4. Grotzer and Bell (2003)
label a sophisticated view the recognition of what they called the “domino-effect” factor,
meaning the students recognize that any change in one population influences all other
populations. While this is important, Robertson et al. (2012) emphasize the importance of
understanding system interaction -- and that we don’t want students to think that any change in
population level results in the collapse of the system: “The nature of interconnectedness of
systems is overstated, e.g., removal of one species leads to system collapse” (p. 349). Therefore,
I had a conversation with an ecologist about some of the answers at level 4 to check a content

60

expert’s opinion. For example, we discussed S7G4F’s answer of systemic interdependency. She
said:
It's exactly the kind of response that could lead you in either direction, right? On the one
hand, this response could be interpreted as "everything linked to everything else", but on
the other - I'm inclined to think it's relatively sophisticated 4th grader. The reason I'm
more inclined to believe the latter is because she articulates the nature of the connections.
I 'think' (and have no evidence to support this, other than anecdotal) that when students
truly don't understand, and employ the "everything connected to everything" strategy as a
response, you're far less likely to see them explain "why" everything would collapse they're likely to say "it just would" with no indictment of mechanism. In this response,
the student is clearly showing her knowledge of trophic structure for this community.
Thus, her reasoning is clear, but it is narrow b/c it is focused only on food, and not other
interactions that shape ecosystem structure. (Personal communication with T. Long, June
12, 2012)
Level 4 answers were those that recognized the interdependency of organisms, but at the
same time provided reasoning that could justify the interdependency.
General frequency at each level
Response frequencies at each level is represented in Figure 3. When students reasoned at
different levels, I chose the higher level as a representative for that question because it meant that
the student can reason at such level. I illustrate this by the following example for systemic
interdependency category:
I:What would happen if all black birds died?
S32G2F: Then there will be more spiders because eat spiders, and this will hurt us
because spiders can bite people, I hate spiders.
The above example can be coded at two different levels: level 2 because the student
recognizes that spiders will increases in number because there is no predator, and level 1 because
she is adding to that the effect on humans as a result of personal dislike to spiders. However,
because she can recognize the effect on one direct population then I coded the answer as a level 2
answer.

61

The interview had many questions some of which managed to tap into students’
reasoning more than others. The following 13 items best represented the four categories of
systemic reasoning:
1- Pic CC: This question requires students to make up their environment and this
belongs to the Circular Connectivity (CC) category of systemic reasoning.
2- Most imp SA: This question requires students to talk about what is the most important
population that can keep the ecosystem functioning properly. Those questions belong
to Systemic Analysis (SA) category.
3- Missing SA: This question asks student if there is something missing the presented
ecosystem and belongs to the systemic analysis (SA) category of systemic reasoning.
4- Insects, birds, fox, fish, plants and poison SI: This set of questions ask students to
predict what would happen if each one of those populations died in the ecosystem and
belong to the systemic Interdependency (SI) category of systemic reasoning; the
question about the poison requires students to predict what would happen if a poison
was sprayed and killed all insects.
5- Fox, grass, mouse and fish DR (This set of questions require students to predict what
would happen to the body of each of those organisms when they die over time. These
questions belong to the Dynamic recycling (DR) category of systemic reasoning).

62

4
3b
3a
2b

fish DR

mouse DR

grass DR

fox DR

poison SI

plants SI

Fish SI

fox SI

birds SI

insects SI

missing SA

most imp SA

2a
pic CC

# of students at each level

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

1.
5
1

Figure 3: Frequencies of Various Levels and Sub-levels of Various Interview Questions.

As shown in Figure 3, the highest frequencies are those of low levels (levels 1 and 2) and
the lowest frequency of level 4 was in the dynamic recycling questions that do not have any
answers at this level. Level 3 constituted higher frequency in the Systemic Interdependency
category than in others.
Circular Connectivity
The question which required students to make up the system, and belonged to the circular
connectivity had the highest frequency of 2a, which means that students were more likely to
think of habitat rather than other factors such as feeding relationships when constructing their
environment. When looking closely at what students chose to make up their environment, thirty
four students chose trees because of the importance of food and shelter (e.g., S4G4F mentioned:
“We need a lot trees for animals to live and eat like birds, squirrels and rabbits.”), 33 students
chose squirrels, and 31 students chose rabbits. The rest of the populations were chosen by less
than 30 students.
63

Systemic Analysis
For the systemic analysis questions, there was a clear variation between the distribution
of levels for the two questions: the question that required students to think of the most important
part of the system resulted in responses with highest frequency being at level 2, whereas, the
question where it required them to think if there was anything missing in the picture resulted in
highest frequency being at level zero meaning they did not think anything was missing or did not
know.
A more detailed inspection of the questions that required students to identify the most
important population in the system showed that 25 out 44 students mentioned plants as the most
important. Some reasons for that were the facts that plants gave food, oxygen, or shelter for
animals. For example, S5G4M said: “Plants are the most important because they give us oxygen
and they are food for animals.” Three out of 44 students talked about the importance of the sun
in helping plants make their food; for example S35G1F said, “I think the most important is the
sun because it makes plants grow and plants give food.” The rest of the answers were distributed
between various populations due to several reasons such as strength (anthropomorphic); for
example, S43G1F said, “The most important is the fox because it is very strong” or requirement
to drink or keeping insect population down. For example, S31G2M said: “ The most important
are frogs because they eat bugs.”
In the question that required students to identify the missing element, 28 students did not
think that anything was missing. The rest of the answers were distributed among the sun because
it gives warmth (five students), the clouds that are part of nature (two students), more food and
shelter (five students), rocks or water for the frogs (three students). Only one student mentioned
the importance of the sun as the primary source of energy without which the system collapses.

64

Frequency of Systemic Interdependency.
In the Systemic Interdependency category, the question which required students to talk
about what would happen if all insects died resulted in the highest frequency of level 3, and the
question with level 2 being the next highest in frequency and there were no level 4 answers for
the question concerning the fish population dying. In order to visually perceive the data better, I
present part of the information from Figure 3 in Figure 4 below which shows the frequency of

# of students at each level

distribution at all levels for the set of questions addressing systemic interdependency:

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

4
3b
3a
2b
2a
1.5
1
insects birds SI
SI

fox SI

Fish SI plants SI poison
SI

0

Figure 4: Frequency of Distribution of Levels of Systemic Interdependency Questions.

Frequency of Dynamic Recycling
In the Dynamic Recycling category (with three questions about recycling of matter when
organisms die) the highest frequency of responses was level 1.5 and there were no level 4
responses for any of the three questions. In order to visually perceive the data better, I present
part of the information from Figure 3 in Figure 5 below which shows the frequency of
distribution at all levels for the set of questions addressing dynamic recycling.

65

# of students at each level

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

4
3
2
1.5
1
0
fox DR

grass DR

mouse DR

fish DR

Figure 5: Frequency of Distribution of Levels of Dynamic Recycling Questions.
Results for mixed-levels reasoning
The results presented above provide one level for each student for each response.
However, there were many cases where students revealed several levels in the course of the
conversation (e.g., during the interview questions the students could reveal responses at levels 3
and 1 or levels 2 and 1 or other combinations). I call this reasoning “mixed-level reasoning.”
Table 13 shows the frequency of answers with mixed-level reasoning
Table 13: Frequency of Occurrences for Students with Mixed-levels.
Picture
CC

Most
Missing
important
SA
element in
ecosystem
SA

Insects
SI

Birds
SI

Fox
SI

Fish SI

Plants
SI

Fox DR

Fish
DR

20/44

7/44

8/44

8/44

10/44

5/44

1/44

9/44

5/44

3/44

Whenever students exhibited more than one level, one of the levels in their response was
level 1 or level 1.5. This means that students included reasoning at the anthropomorphic or
concrete level reasoning in addition to reasoning at higher levels. The question that required
students to choose populations to make up a viable environment (circular connectivity category)
had the highest frequency of mixed-level reasoning. Later, I discuss some conjectures as to why
66

this might be the case. An illustration of mixed-level reasoning is shown in Table 14 with
representative questions from each category of systemic reasoning:
8

Table 14: Illustration of Students Showing “Mixed-level Reasoning” in Systemic Reasoning .
If you were to create
your own environment
having water sun clouds
and soil, choose some of
those organisms that can
live there in such a way
that the environment is
working well (CC)
S10G4M: I choose
birds, trees, squirrels
and bunnies. I choose
them because they all
work together, they
don’t hurt each other,
they
usually
don’t
bother each other, some
of them help each other
(level 1 because he is
transferring
human
characteristics
to
animals and plants).
The trees help the
squirrels and
birds
because they live in
them. The flowers make
food for the animals for
the birds and bunnies
(level 3 because he is
considering habitat and
food to make up this
environment).

What is the most What would happen if What would happen the
important element in the all foxes died? (SI)
body of the fox when it
ecosystem (SA)
dies (DR)

S24G2M: The trees and
the flowers because they
can give us oxygen
(level 2 because he is
considering a reason of
the
importance
of
plants)

S27G2F: chickens will
be safe and the farmers
wouldn’t have to take
care of the foxes
anymore and the fish
would be happy to
survive but owls would
still eat them (level 1
and level 3 because she
is
relating
human
emotions to the animals
but at the same time
recognizing the how
foxes eat many other
animals)

I:anything else
S: and the frog because
if there were bugs they
can eat them and keep
us safe (level 1 and 1.5
because he is relating
the reason to human
need to being safe but
at the same recognizing I: is this good
that frogs eat insects)
S: no, because the foxes
make sure there’s not
too many chicken (level
2
because
she
understands that the
top carnivore keeps
other
populations
down)

8

S15G3F: If the fox died,
it would probably go to
heaven (level 1 because
she is transferring what
she
learned
about
human to animals)
I: what would happen to
its body
S: it would be eaten by
birds and possum
I: And what if they
don’t eat it
S: it will go under the
ground
(level
1.5
because she recognizes
what she is used to
experiences or reading
about that the fox will
eaten
or
goes
underground)

The sentences in bolded italics explain why that part of the students’ answer was at that
specific level.
67

Results for scientific technical terminology.
Students used two scientific terms in their reasoning, “food chain” and “disintegrate”
despite the fact that I did not mention these terms in the interview. Four students used “food
chain” while talking about the influence of population change in the ecosystem and five students
used the word “disintegrate” when talking about decay of dead organisms. Knowing that the
students did not learn the terminology formally in school, having some the students use those
words prompts one to probe whether students are reasoning scientifically because they are using
scientific terms or not. Moreover one would be curious where students are acquiring those words
if they have not learned formally in school. Therefore, I present in this section the reasoning of
students when using those terms and in the later section of sources of knowledge where students
have learned those words from.
Two students from fourth grade, one student from third grade, and one student from second
grade mentioned the word “food chain.” Below is an illustration of how a fourth grade student
used this word:
I: Have you learned about this topic before?
S3G4F: I learned how big fish eats small fish and that fish keeps on eating, sort of
a food chain and how the bigger fish will eat it.
I: what is a food chain?
S3G4F: let’s imagine a small fish and a bigger fish eats that and bigger fish eats
that and then a shark comes and eats the big fish; that is a food chain
I: where have you learned about that?
S3G4F: I had this one video it had all these whales and stuff and how they eat
krill and how they open their mouth and how they suck the krill in that’s all I can
remember right now
One student from fourth grade, two students from third grade, and one student from second
grade used the term “disintegrate.” The following excerpt illustrates how a third grade student
used the word disintegrate:
I: What will happen when the fox dies?
68

S12G3M: It would disintegrate because the sun shines on it. After one year, the
bones will be all broken and underground.
I: Why will the bones be broken?
S12G3M: It will be broken because it goes into the ground.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
There were three main results for the first research question. The first concerned the
development of the learning progression levels which starts with the lower anchor of
anthropomorphic reasoning and ends with the upper anchor of complex causal reasoning. The
second result concerned looking at the frequency of levels for answers across the various
categories of systemic reasoning and the levels 1.5 and 2 were the most frequent in the overall
picture. The third concerned presence mixed-level reasoning for some students and the use of
technical scientific terms.
st th

Results of Research Question 2: How are 1 -4

graders’ reasoning similar or different

across each grade level, gender or ability?
In order to answer this question, I used the rank correlation between grade, ability and
gender with the students’ responses representing Circular Connectivity, Systemic analysis, and
the average of the set of questions representing Systemic Independency and Dynamic Recycling.
. The results are shown in Table 15.
Table 15: Correlation of Gender, Grade and Ability with Systemic Reasoning (N=44).
Gender
Ability
Grade

Gender Ability Grade Pic CC MostimpSA MissSA SI Average DA Average
1
-.294
-.115 -.020
-.048
.117
.094
-.032
1

-.006

.046

.036

.140

.182

-.033

1

.071

.222

.095

.374(*)

.278

* Correlation is significant at the p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
69

As shown in Table 15, there was no correlation between grade level, gender and ability
(as indicated by teacher) with any of the variables except a low correlation between grade level
and Systemic Interdependency average. In order to understand what may have caused this slight
correlation (r=0.374; p<0.05), I examined the correlation of the grade level with each question in
the Systemic Interdependency category and the results are show in Table 16:

Table 16: Correlation between Grade Level for Systemic Interdependency Questions (N=44).
Grade
insectsSI birdsSI
foxSI
Grade
1
.87
.61
.185
** Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).

fishSI
.289

plantsSI
.480(**)

poisonDR
.474(**)

As shown in Table 16, there was a modest positive correlation between grade level and the
question which required students to talk about what would happen if all plants died (r=0.480;
p<0.001), and the question concerning the poison (r=0.474; p<0.01). This means that students in
higher grades tended to answer at higher levels for those two questions. To illustrate this, I
present the frequency of answers for those questions in each of Figures 6 and 7:

0

2

3

4
5

2

Grade 2

Grade 4

1.5

6

Grade1

Grade 3

1

1

8

1

2

6

3

5

3

2

Figure 6. Frequency of Responses at Each Grade Level for the Plant Question

70

As shown in Figure 6, there were more answers at levels 1.5 in grade 1 and none in grade
4. Moreover, there were two answers at level 4 in grade 4 showing that there is slight difference
towards higher levels at grade 4 which explains the weak correlation. The two students (S7G4F
& S9G4F) who showed this high level of reasoning for the plants are the same students who will
be discussed later as cases.

0

3

4

3
5

3

1

3

2

3
2

2

5
1

2

Grade 3
Grade 4

1.5

4

Grade1
Grade 2

1

6

2

Figure 7 The Frequency of Responses at Each Grade Level for the Poison Question .

As shown in Figure 7, no fourth grade students demonstrated level zero reasoning and six
fourth grade students reasoned at level 4 about the poison. No first and second grade students
reasoned at level 4, but there were four students at level zero in first grade and two students at
level zero in second grade. An example of a fourth grade student reasoning at a level 4 student is:
I: If poison was sprayed that killed insects, would other creatures be affected?
S3G4F: Yea if any animals ate them, like if the cricket dies of poison and so if
something like the possum ate the cricket it will die, and then if the fox will eat it
and it will be affected and if the fox dies and nothing else eats the fox it will just
die as it did.

71

Summary of Results for Research Question 2.
The results for the second research questions showed that was no correlation between
gender and ability and any of the interview questions. There was a slight positive correlation
between grade level and the two questions of systemic interdependency, the question concerning
the influence of plants and the question concerning the influence of poison on the ecosystem.
The implications of those results will be discussed in the next chapter.
st th

Results of Research Question 3: How is 1 -4

graders’ reasoning across and within the

various system categories correlated?
In order to answer this question, I looked at the correlations across the systemic reasoning
categories using rank correlations. The results are shown in Table 17.
Table 17: Correlations across Systemic Reasoning Categories (N=44).
PicCC

MissSA

SI Average

DR Average

1

Picture

MostimpSA
.283

.198

.331(*)

.123

1

.086

.287

.010

1

.416(**)

.329(*)

1

.435(**)

MostimpSA
MissSA

SI Average
* Correlation is significant at p < 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at p< 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 17 reveals that there was modest positive correlation between Systemic
Interdependency and circular connectivity (r=0.331; p<0.05); the question of systemic analysis
concerning what is missing in the picture (r=0.416; p<0.01); and the average of dynamic
recycling (r=0.435; p<0.01). Moreover, the question concerning what was missing the picture (a
systemic analysis question) had a modest positive correlation with the average of dynamic
recycling (r=0.329; p<0.01).
72

In addition to testing for correlation across categories of systemic reasoning, I zoomed in
at each category of systemic synthesis and dynamic recycling, and examined the correlations
within each category. Table 18 presents the correlation analysis with students’ responses to items
within Systemic Interdependency.
Table 18: Correlation within Systemic Interdependency Category (N=44).
InsectsSI

FoxSI

FishSI

PlantsSI

PoisonSI

1

.433(**)

.292

.500(**)

.303(*)

.476(**)

1

.541(**)

.417(**)

.458(**)

.302(*)

1

.211

.415(**)

.182

1

InsectsSI

BirdsSI

.554(**)

.409(**)

1

.493(**)

BirdsSI
FoxSI
FishSI

PlantsSI
** Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at p < 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As shown in Table 18, there was a modest correlation among most of the questions
except for the question concerning the fox in relation to the questions concerning the insects as
well as the poison. Moreover, the highest correlation was between the question concerning the
fish and that concerning the plants (r=0.500; p<0.01).
Table 19 presents the correlation analysis with students’ responses to items within
Dynamic Recycling.
Table 19: Correlation within Dynamic Recycling Category (N=44).
FoxDR
GrassDR

FoxDR
1

GrassDR
.189

Mouse DR
.758(**)

FishDR
.300(*)

1

.344(*)

.297

1

.400(**)

MouseDR
** Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at p < 0.05 level (2-tailed).
73

As shown in Table 19, there was no correlation between the question concerning the
grass and either that of the fox or that of the fish. However, there was high correlation between
the question concerning the fox and that concerning the mouse (r=0.758; p<0.01).
Students’ consistency of responses across various categories of systemic reasoning
In order to look more closely at students’ consistency in answering the interview
questions within and across systemic reasoning categories, I constructed a table that illustrates
the consistency in students’ responses to the 13 most representative questions of the interview.
Similar to Jin (2010), I used the most frequent level for each student as the baseline (labeled as a
“0”). If a student had a response that was at a different level than the most frequent level (the
baseline), the difference is indicated by a positive or negative number indicating how much
above or below the students’ response was from the baseline. For example, if the most frequent
level is 2, then any answer at level 2 will be counted as the baseline “0” and any answer that is at
level 3 will be coded as “1” because I subtract 3-2 which gives “1.” If the answer is at level 1,
then the code will 1-2 which is “-1.” Table 20 shows a sample of four students (one from each
grade level) for the 13 items used. Appendix VII has the detailed data for all 44 students.
9

Table 20: Sample of Four Students’ Consistency of Answers .
Student/
most
frequent
level
S1G4M (2)
S11G3F
(1.5)
S21G2F
(1.5)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

0
-0.5

0
0.5

-2
-1.5

1
-1.5

0
0

-2
0

0
0

0
0.5

2
-1.5

-0.5
0

-0.5
0

-0.5
0

1
0

0.5

0.5

-1.5

1.5

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

9

The bold letters indicate the difference between the level for that response and the baseline or
most frequent level.
74

Table 20 (cont’d)
S36G1M
(3)

1

0

-1.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1.5

-1

-1

-1

In order to examine the consistency in students’ responses, I calculated the percentages of
baseline responses. 49.65% of students’ responses were consistent, meaning that almost half of
the students’ responses were consistent with their baseline response. In examining the
consistency of response to the six systemic interdependency questions, I found that 58.85% had
consistent answers. The consistency of responses for the four dynamic recycling questions was
82.95%.
As indicated by the results above, some students were consistent while others were not.
Table 21 shows an illustration of students’ consistency of levels across systemic reasoning
categories.
Table 21: Example of One Student’s Consistent Answers S12G3M.
Systemic
Interdependency

Systemic Analysis
What is the most
important element of the
What will happen if all system
insects died?

Circular Connectivity
Dynamic Recycling
Choose the populations
that make up your What would happen to
environment that can the fox when it dies
function properly

Trees
and
plants
Then the frogs will die because they help you
because
they
have breathe
nothing to eat

S: I would choose the It
will
disintegrate
trees because trees make because the sun shines
oxygen and if there was on it
no trees we would all be
dead by now, I picked
birds because birds need
homes like we do and
squirrels do too. I
picked bushes so that
other animals can go
there and make a home.
I: why didn’t you
choose the rest?
S: because some of
these don’t have to here,
centipedes are under the
ground

75

Table 21 (cont’d)
Level 2 because he is
thinking
of
one
population
directly
related to the insects

Level 2 because he is
considering one reason
for the importance of
plants

Level 2 because he is Level 2 because the he
considering the habitat is thinking of one factor
as the main reason for for disintegration
choosing
the
populations

Even though half of the students showed consistent answers, the other half were
inconsistent, Table 22 illustrates an inconsistent case.
Table 22: Example of One Student’s Inconsistent Answers S14G3M.
Systemic
Interdependency

Systemic Analysis

Circular Connectivity

Dynamic Recycling

What is the most Choose the populations
What will happen if all important element of the that make up your
insects died?
system
environment that can
function properly
Many animals won’t Plants because without I chose the frog because
have any food and they plants the fox will have it could eat the beetles
will die too, like the nowhere to hide
and the bunny can eat
bird, the possum, the
plants and the fish eats
frogs and the owls and
different fish, the crab
lots of animals
eats worms and fish. I
chose flowers and trees
because they are homes
for animals
I: why didn’t you
choose squirrels and
birds
S: because the spiders
would eat the worms
and so birds won’t have
worms to eat, so there
wouldn’t be enough
worms for the birds

What would happen to
the fox when it dies

Level 3 because he is Level 2 because he’s
considering
several considering plants as
populations that feed on shelter
the insects

Level 1 because he is
considering
anthropomorphic
reasoning

Level 3 because he is
considering the habitat
and the feeding relations
as reasons to construct
the environment

His family would bury
him and they will be sad

Summary of Results for Research Question 3.
The correlation results across various categories of systemic reasoning were very modest.
In examining the highest frequency for all 13 items, the results indicate that the consistency of
76

the level of students’ responses was about 50%. This means that, in general, a given student
would have approximately 50% of his or her answers at a certain level and the rest of the
answers at different levels. This percentage was the same for systemic interdependency category.
However, in the dynamic recycling the consistency rises to 82.98% meaning that the students’
answers were more consistent at a certain level within this category. This is supported by the
correlation within the dynamic recycling category where the only strong correlation was
observed (r=0.758, p<0.01) between the question concerning the fox and that concerning the
mouse. The students’ responses, therefore, are more consistent within the dynamic recycling
category and less consistent across systemic reasoning categories.
st

th

Results of Research Question 4: Where do 1 - 4

graders learn about ecological

relationships?
During the interview, I asked students about where they have learned about the topics
that we discussed, and the experiences they had with nature and animals. Moreover, whenever a
student answered in an interesting way, I asked how he or she learned that information. If some
students were reluctant, I tried to prompt them to think of books, movies, TV shows or trips in
order to find out as much as I could about their experiences. Having asked them several times
about the sources of their knowledge, I was able to able to gather information about their various
sources of knowledge. I first present the general picture of the various sources of knowledge that
contributed to students’ responses, and then illustrate examines for each resource. Later, I
present eight cases that include information about the students, and information from when I
interviewed the parents to learn more about the students’ sources of knowledge, the students’
learning styles, and the parent’s influence on the students’ education.

77

Students’ sources of knowledge
When I asked students how they know about a given topic during the interview, I got
various answers and many students mentioned more than one resource of their information.
Table 23 shows the various resources and the frequency of occurrence of each resource.
Table 23: Frequency of Occurrence for Each Resource.
Resource

Don’t
know

Books

Media:
movies
and TV
shows

Number
of times

2

21

25

Personal
experience
(e.g.,
camps,
nature
walks)
23

Museums
(e.g.,
Impression
5)

Teachers
or school

Parents

Others,
like
travel or
website

3

8

15

2

As shown in Table 23, most of the students mentioned resources that contributed to their
knowledge of the topics we discussed. Only two students said they did not know where they
learned about the topic. If the student mentioned several resources I counted each resource. As
seen from Table 23, the resource mentioned with highest frequency was the media, followed by
personal experiences and books.
Concerning the media, the highest frequency of answers mentioned TV shows such as
Magic School Bus (8 students mentioned that), and Animal Planet (8 students), followed by Wild
Kratts (4students mentioned it). There were other movies that were mentioned by a couple of
students such as Lion King, My Cat from Hell, and Alvin and the Chipmunk at PBS Kids and
National Geographic channels. I illustrate this category by the two examples; the first was from
a third grade student when I asked in general how she knows about the topic:
I: How do you all of this information about the topic?
S18G3F: I watch National Geographic Kids and Animal Planet.
I: what did you see there?

78

S18G3F: I watch the life of sea turtle. I watched something sad but nice, it’s
about sea turtle when they hatch they have to go a long way to the ocean and
seagulls diving try to eat them and crabs grabbing them.
Another example was from a second grade student when I asked a specific question about
what would happen when fish died, and she replied:
S21G2F: The owl would have nothing to eat; the owl would eat possum but
maybe not many possums that come around. If there’s a bear here, it would starve
because bear’s favorite food is fish
I: how do you know bear’s favorite food is fish?
S21G2F: on National Geographic I saw that and they always go on waterfalls and
find fish and I’m surprised they don’t slip, maybe those steady claws.
In addition to the media, students mentioned books as a major resource of their
knowledge. In many cases, students mentioned various resources during the conversation, for
example one second grade student said:
I: Where do you have all this information from?
S22G2M: I have lots of bird books and animal books and tree book, they are
called “All about Insects” and “All about mammals of the earth” and “Animals of
the world” one book my grandma gave to me and one we found in the house
somewhere and the big animal book we bought from Meijer
I: any movies you watch?
S22G2M: America s Videos and Wolverine Shows and Wild Kratts they teach you
about animals
I: any cartoons
S22G2M: Wild Kratts is actually a cartoon, it’s about all animals like monkeys
and about food chain.
I: What is a food chain?
S22G2M: It is when animals eat other animals
I: is there a food chain here
S22G2M: cricket is at the bottom of the food chain
I: where did you learn that?
S22G2M: Wild Kratts, go to PBS Kids and you can find Wild Kratts and watch it
if you like
As seen from the excerpt above, S22G2M related learning the topic the various books he
has and to the TV show Wild Kratts. He explicitly related information about the food chain that
he learned from that show. It is also worth noting from the excerpt that he understood the

79

concept of the food chain even though it was not clear the extent of complexity that he thought
about it.
As for the other resources, students mentioned that their personal experiences (e.g.,
nature walks in the woods, their backyards, or going camping or hunting with one of their
parents and relatives) were ways by which they know about the topic. S4G4F illustrates this by
saying:
I like animals and I like to go exploring, one time we went into the forest and we
saw a snake so we were careful. I went with my uncle and I’ve seen a rabbit and I
picked it because it was nice and kept her until she died.
Moreover, students reported visiting the Impression 5 museum that helped them learn
how plants get their food or how they learned about that in class how water and sunlight help
plants grow. S27G2F illustrates this by saying:
I: How do you know about this topic?
S27G2F: We went to Impression 5 with all my class and in class she showed us
how to make a biosphere and she told us that plants make oxygen
I: Where else did you did you learn
S27G2F: I went to Potter Park Zoo last year and I went with the class, it was fun I
like the combination of having fun and learning about animals, one time I saw
somebody feeding the otter fish.
Other students mentioned learning about how plants grow about the animals they had in
class, for example a third grade students said:
I: where did you learn about this?
S11G3F: we had a crayfish and crickets and a frog. We have it in our classroom
I: what do you do with them?
S11G3F: we don’t do anything, our teacher feeds them
I: do you watch any shows?
S11G3F: I watched Animal Planet once
Summary of Results for Students’ Knowledge Resources
Students mentioned various resources for their knowledge with the most mentioned
resource being the media (e.g., movies and TV shows). Most of the students mentioned a
80

combination of resources such as the media, books, museums, school parents and websites such
“birds.com.” In some instances, students could identify where they have learned about feeding
relationships of some animals but in many other instances, it was not always possible to directly
pinpoint the source of information that influenced their answers during the interview. For this
reason, I interviewed eight parents to ask them about their children’s sources of knowledge and
to learn more about the students and about the opportunities that parents expose their children to
and I present the results of those cases in the next section.
Learning More about Students Sources of Knowledge from Eight Cases

In order to learn more about the students’ sources of knowledge and experiences, I
selected eight students and interviewed their parents. The selection process depended on my
judgment of the student and the teacher’s judgment of the student and their parents. For some
cases, the teachers told me that the parents may not respond and so it would be better to choose a
different case and I did that. After careful selection, I ended up with two cases from each grade
level. It is worth noting here that not only is it hard to find a causal relation between students’
informal experiences and their performance during, but also it may be not very convincing to do
so. The reason lies in the fact that all experiences, learning styles, or parents’ influences are too
complex to tease apart during one interview. However, what might be possible is to shed light on
some of the experiences, opportunities or resources that are important for each student and to
learn about the parents’ ways of influencing their children’s science education.
Knowing that each case is different in the level of understanding the ecosystem and in the
richness of information that they provided during interviews, I am presenting each case
separately with information from students and parents’ interviews that shed light on the students’

81

experiences and in some cases relating specific experiences to some answers that the students
gave.
Case 1: Student S7G4F: Jane the Dinosaur Lover.
Table 24: Jane’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

Jane
9 years
th
4 grade
Drawing, bird watching, swimming and Karate
Her understanding of the sun as the major element
without which the whole system collapses

Jane was one the students who showed understanding of the ecosystem as a whole.
During the interview, she took her time to think and talked extensively about how all elements of
the ecosystem are related. Most of the answers to the interview questions were coded as levels 3
and 4. She immediately recognized the food chain when I asked her about scenario 1 which
showed the environment with several animal populations and she said:
It’s a food chain, it’s a big food chain, the arrows are pointing to what they eat so
like the spider would go to the mouth of the crow. A lot of them are pointing to
the fox because is one of the only meat eaters. So it’s a big food chain, there’s the
spider and the frog would the spider and the fox would the frog and the owl would
be the fish.
Her answers concerning the question of what she thinks might be missing in the picture of the
ecosystem made me curious to probe her understanding further:
Jane: I just saw there’s no sun in this picture, they need the sun or else the plants
won’t live and the animals that eat plants won’t live, and then all the animals
would die and then all meat eaters would die and all would die
I: so its complex, right?
Jane: yea I used to read about dinosaurs so when dinosaurs got extinct that’s
where I learned all that from, it could be the same with animals here.
I: what did you learn about dinosaurs?
Jane: I learned how dinosaurs from books and movies, so I know they became
extinct so they believe that there was a volcano or meteorite wiped them all out or
both of them at the same time.
I: did it affect the environment?

82

Jane: it affected it very much, after it hit, there was enough smoke to cover up the
sun for long time and if no sun no light and all of it just died away and when the
sun came it started over.
Jane was the only student among the 44 students to think of the importance of the sun to
whole system and to reason that the sun influences all other populations in the ecosystem, so if
there is no sun, the whole ecosystem will be affected in a “domino-like” manner. In a similar
way, Jane also realized the importance of the plants so when asked what would happen if all
plants died she said:
If plants died, each animal would die, first it’ll be the bugs, then the ones that eat
the bugs, then the ones that eat small animals.
When I investigated how she has the knowledge about ecosystem she said:
Jane: I just look at it, I have a good time when we are on summer and spring
vacation in our cottage, we always see snakes and birds and how all the animals,
frogs, tadpoles, how they live and the lake and the rocks.
I: you mean it’s all from your observations?
Jane: I also read some books, fact books about animals I’m interested about those
things.
I: who chooses those books?
Jane: sometimes I get them and usually my grandpa gets them to me.
I: do you watch any movies?
Jane: I watch Animal Planet, it shows the life style and how babies are born
I: what is something you have learned from Animal Planet?
Jane: it can be about anything really, it can be about the ocean, animals and
mountains, it can just be about plants and rocks.
I: Any other movies or shows you have seen?
Jane: I have seen many cartoon movies like the Lion King?
I: what have you learned from the Lion King movie?
Jane: kind of how the life style of animals are what they eat and what happens to
them when they die, they go in the grass after they die and they become food for
other animals.
I: so other animals come and eat them?
Jane: yea that and also they go inside the grass and earth.
Those excerpt show that Jane has capitalized on several resources to learn about animals
in the ecosystem. When I asked her mother, who is a teacher, about where Jane had learned
about the ecosystem she reinforced that Animal Planet is her main source of information about
83

animals and the ecosystem, but she also confirmed that Jane has multiple sources of her
information said:
Jane’s Mother: She’s done two science camps through Impression 5, she won a
poster through Impression 5 when she was in Kindergarten, she made a picture of
a river of a little ecosystem of a river, she won and got to meet the mayor. She has
also been two science camps through Impression 5, one about the human body
systems and one about dinosaurs.
I: what are her other experiences?
Jane’s mother: she reads facts books about dinosaurs and had a dinosaur fact
game like a quiz game. Also through our memberships of zoos and museums, we
go to several and when we go to Pittsburgh we go to children’s museum. We also
went to the Cincinnati museum and we also went to zoo this spring break too, She
10
has also been to the Field museum in Chicago when was as 5 and saw SUE
when she was five years old. She also has a dinosaur fact quiz game and she
always read about animals in national geographic magazines which were in our
backyard.
Through both my interview with Jane and her mother, it became clear that Jane’s
reasoning about ecosystems are influenced by these various resources. I also asked Jane’s mother
about Jane’s learning style and she said:
Jane’s mother: “she makes connections to other things, she says that works there
so maybe we can apply it here too. For her she has a strong science understanding
but struggles with other parts but this is kind of natural.
I: what does she struggle with?
Jane’s mother: she has been a low reader and a struggling reader, and she’s
always received extra help. Not to the point of special education, but still
struggles with reading. She can read and get the whole picture but she doesn’t
always pay attention to the details and sometimes substitutes words. Just recently
she started reading more independently, but before it was a more of a
conversation about what we saw what she was watching or we would read the
books to her. She always asked questions and conversations about it.
This information about Jane’s struggling with reading is paralleled by Jane’s teacher
classification of her as a middle achiever. Similarly, when I spoke with the teacher about Jane’s
case, she said: “She struggles a little with reading, but I know that Jane is a deep thinker.”

10

SUE is the largest Tyrannosaurus rex 67 million year old dinosaur skeleton preserved in
Chicago Field Museum.
84

To sum up, Jane has showed interest in science and in learning about animals and
ecosystems. Her parents encouraged that interest and created several opportunities for her to be
engaged in learning about the ecosystem and it was obvious that Jane was thinking at the
systemic level and analyzing the various elements of the ecosystem that all influence each other.
Moreover, her mother mentioned that she would always have a conversation about they read
especially that Jane was struggling with reading so the discussion was her way to learn about the
topics she read or her parents read to her.

Case 2: Student S9G4F Profile: Olinda the Dog Lover.
Table 25: Olinda’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

Olinda
9 years
th
4 grade
Reading, Sports, Dancing
Her high level responses in most of the interview
questions

Olinda showed sophisticated answers (mostly level 3) in questions, particularly when she
was asked to select populations to make up her environment and when she was asked about the
influence of removing specific populations. For example, her response to what would happen if
black birds disappeared was:
Olinda: there will be more insects in the world and the crocodiles have to have
birds coming and cleaning their teeth and the crocodiles will have diseases if birds
did not clean their teeth and it could spread to other animals.
I: how did you know about that?
Olinda: I’ve watched Animal Planet a lot
I: anything else will happen?
Olinda: lots of things would stay like berries and what they eat.
In her answer, Olinda was one of the few who considered mutualistic relationships and
reasoning about other populations that the birds eat. In addition, Olinda showed that she could
85

think of plants as food and shelter in an intertwined way. Therefore, when she was asked what
would happen if all plants died, she said:
Olinda: lots of animals will not have homes lots of them would die because they
don’t have food or plants and many animals eat plants and hide in them and if the
cricket or birds kept eating all spiders (because there wouldn’t any shelter for
them to stay hidden), then there wouldn’t be any spiders in the world and there
would be more insects.
Even though her answer concentrated mainly on the populations that eat the plants, she also
reasoned about plants as providing shelter from predators.

Thus, her idea of shelter was

interconnected with feeding relationship, which is different from how most students thought of
plants as providing food and shelter in separate ways.
When asking her mother about Olinda’s experiences, her mother emphasized that
although they have been to museums or to zoos and aquariums, she believes that Olinda has a
natural interest in animals and when it comes to this topic she just “absorbs” it. Olinda was
considered a high achiever by the teacher and when I asked the teacher about Olinda she said:
“She is an excellent student and she loves animals. So I hooked her in research about dogs at
MSU with researchers so she is doing more on her own about this topic.” I asked her mother
about that, the mother said,
They researched "general" information about Golden Retriever dogs in books at
our school library. Then they searched the internet for pictures. After they
collected their information, Olinda created a poster with pictures and various facts
about Golden Retrievers. There was no paper or written work, other than the
small amount on the poster.
However, despite those experiences, Olinda’s mother reiterated that all the activities are
more or less happening in an informal setting and that she thinks that Olinda is just good at
school and likes to learn and that’s why she believes that her daughter can do well in the
interview:

86

I don’t feel I’ve done anything directly to reflect her performance in this other
than trying to give my kids life experience. She learns well in any type of
environment, she can sit down and read and learn on her own, she’s an excellent
reader and writer. She’s a good student, but she also enjoys working in groups and
doing research in a group.
Olinda’s interests, knowledge and experiences showed during some of her answers to the
interview questions. She was incorporating some of what she learned from Animal Planet in her
reasoning about the ecosystem. However, besides Animal Planet, it was clear where she’s
acquiring all her ideas from especially that the mother thinks that “she likes the animals and likes
to learn more but not necessarily going deep into it”.

Case 3: S19G3M: Ron the Book Worm.
Table 26: Ron’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

Ron
8 years
th
3 grade
Reading, traveling, marble runs in museums
His teacher recommended I talk to the mother

Ron was one of the students whom the teacher categorized as a high achiever and she
recommended interviewing this mother. The teacher said: “She does a lot with her kids and I
would recommend you interview his mother.” When analyzing his interview, Ron had few
answers at levels 3 but most of his answers were levels 2 and 1.5. Some of his answers were
determined at one level such as when asked about the effect of insects dying on the ecosystem,
he said:
Ron: some of the animals would die, the frog might be extinct, the bird and
maybe the fish.
I: why?
Ron: because they eat insect so if there are no insect they have nothing to eat and
will die.
87

The above answer shows that Ron is thinking of several populations that feed on insect
and but when asked about what would happen if all black birds disappeared, his answer was:
Ron: Birds, farmers wouldn’t be able to put up scarecrows,
I: anything else?
Ron: we would get a lot of spiders
I: why?
Ron: because birds eat spiders so if there are no birds the spiders will stay alive
and become more and more
Even though Ron identified the importance of the birds in feeding on spiders, his
reasoning was a mixture of simple-causal reasoning and concrete-practical reasoning. He said
that birds eat spiders which could be identified the simple causal reasoning but at the same time,
he was thinking of the practical reasoning of the lack of need for scarecrows. It is worth noting
that many of his answers revealed this mixed-level reasoning.
When trying to learn more about Ron, I asked him how he knew about this specific topic
and he said that he reads books. He was not specific about book names and nor was his mother
who confirmed his love for reading and said:
Ron’s Mother: Ron is a bookworm and rather ingests it slowly; he’ll sit down and
observe and thinking about it mentally
I: do you discuss what he learns?
Ron’s mother: Not really, Ron just reads to read and does not share with me.
I also learned that the mother, who previously worked for the federal government agency
of the US geological survey, had made a special effort to expose her children to many
opportunities for learning science. She said:
When I learned I was pregnant with my first son, I decided I was going to expose
my child to as much as I could especially that this is university town so I wanted
to take advantage of that. I also realize that the United States is lagging behind so
far scientists and engineers so my focus is to expose them to as much scientific
elements as I can.

88

And with this being her policy, Ron’s mother informed me of the different opportunities
that she exposed her children to:
We have a membership to Impression 5 so we use it whenever we go, we were in
Toronto few years ago and we went to Ontario science center. Just this last spring
break we went to Columbus, Ohio and we went to COSI science center. We also
went to Indiana this Spring in 2012 and also to Grand Rapids children’s museum.
st
Also, here in school in kindergarten and in 1 grade, they visit nature centers, in
kindergarten they go to nature walk and there’s a little discussion indoors and
some animals to see in the nature center.
As for the TV shows that her children watch, she mentioned Magic School Bus and Peep
and Big Wide world as shows that Ron watches regularly and recently they started watching
animal planet but less regularly.
After looking closely at the interviews both with Ron and his mother, it was clear that
Ron was exposed to a lot of informal experiences, but it was not clear how his experiences or
readings transferred to the interview answers.
Case 4: S13G3M: Cory the Horse Lover.
Table 27: Cory’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

Cory
8 years
th
3 grade
Reading, Horse watching , soccer
The teacher recommended her as one of the
candidates to talk to her parents

Cory’s teacher identified him as a high achiever, but he was one of the students who did
not elaborate much during the interview, so I was intrigued to learn more about him. His answers
during the interview were mainly level 1.5 with few answers at level 2. His understanding of the
food web was better when he was asked to make up the environment rather than when he was

89

asked to predict the effect of losing a specific population.

When asked to make up his

environment he said:
Ron: I choose the frog because it can stay on water. A bird likes to eat worms so I
chose those two birds, worms clean animals, I did not chose the crab because the
crab fights with other crabs, once my teacher got crayfish and it died because it
fought with another one
I: how do you know worms clean other animals?
S: My dad told me
I: do you how they might clean animals?
S: no
When reasoning about the environment, Cory was able to consider the simple feeding
relationship of the birds which is level 2, but when I asked in a different scenario what would
happen if birds died he said: “We wouldn’t have birds anymore so we can’t see them and that’s a
bad thing”.
Cory mentioned that he gets his information from reading, specifically about horses, so I
asked his mother about this and she told me:
He has a huge passion for horses; we’ve got one really thick hard cover books and
it is full of information it’s called animal book or something and has books about
horses that has the terminology and not just fiction.

Other experiences with animals that his mother mentioned were some nature fun walks in
the woods and going to zoos a lot. When I asked about the media, she mentioned he sometimes
watches Animal Planet but not regularly. He has also seen a movie about horses called “Flicka.”
From the interview with Cory and his mother, it was hard to determine how he drew upon his
experiences to answer the interview questions. His experience with horses was not necessarily
supporting his reasoning about the ecosystem as a whole – especially because the interview
scenarios did not have horses as animals so it was difficult to transfer his knowledge of horses to
the interview answers.

90

Case 5: S30G2F: Macy the Zoo Lover.
Table 28: Macy’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age

Macy
7 years

Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

2nd grade
Reading, Gymnastics, Biking
The teacher recommended speaking with her
parents

Macy was identified as an average achiever by the teacher and her answers during the
interview were mainly at levels 1 and 2 with more answers at level 1.5; for example when asked
to make up her own environment, she said:
Macy: I would choose the squirrel, the bird, the rabbit, the flowers and fish.
I: why those?
Macy: Because they are all animals and some live on the ground like rabbit and
squirrel, squirrel in tree and bunny in a hole in the ground and bird lives in a nest
in the tree, and I chose the fish because it lives underwater and I have fish also,
also the flowers I chose them to look beautiful where the animals live to look
beautiful.
The above example shows that Macy is thinking of the habitat of organisms and the
aesthetic aspect of the environment without thinking of the feeding relationships. Similar low
levels were shown when asked to predict what would happen if black birds died when she said,
“They can’t get babies anymore and no black birds exist anymore and they wouldn’t have any
more chirping.”
When asked about how she learns, she mentioned personal experiences such as going to
Detroit zoo, and her mother confirmed that by saying:
We go Impression 5 and we went to the science museum in Detroit last year in
addition to Detroit zoo which she loves, but I think she’s more into getting her
hands dirty and knowing the nitty-gritty about how are they born and how they
are when they are young, she’s very intrigued.

91

When asked about the media, her mother said that Macy mainly watches Disney movies
such Lion King and Black Beauty and does not watch many of the TV shows. One aspect that
Macy did not mention but her mother mentioned was that she likes to read and she is currently
reading about fairies, but she also reads about horses on some websites. Despite those informal
experiences and her interest in horses, this did not support Macy’s higher levels of thinking
concerning the ecosystem.

Case 6 S35G2M: George the Insect Lover.
Table 29: George’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

George
7 years
nd
2 grade
Soccer, playing video games
His high level of thinking about the system for his
age

George’s teacher identified him as a middle achiever. She said: “Maybe his father is a
physicist and he teaches him many things, but if I if I look at what I like to call ‘school behavior’
sitting down, getting your work done, checking your work and making sure that your work is
accurate, he’s not so good at that.”
Despite that, George exhibited high levels (mainly level 3 and 4) during the interview.
Several instances during the interview he revealed how he’s thinking of every element of the
ecosystem influencing the rest. One of the prominent examples was when I asked what would
happen if all insects died and he answered:
George: The plants will die because the bugs help the plants.
I: how do they help them?
George: some of the flowers have nectar and bees take the nectar so some flowers
will die
I: Anything else will happen?
92

George: After that, the frogs will probably die, and if frogs will die, the owl and
some birds will die because they don’t find anything to eat, and plants and flowers
are the same thing the possums will die because berries will be gone and if the
beavers didn’t have berries or stuff, he will die and the fox could only get the fish
and it won’t be enough because there would only be fish so he would die, and the
fish will be the only left.
George: how do you know all that?
George: My dad, nature camp and teacher.

The above answer shows that George is thinking of mutualistic relationship of insects and
plants, in addition to complex effects on the ecosystem if insects were removed. This effect was
transmitted to most of the populations of the food chain as he explained, and he systematically
explained his reasoning of how one population after another will be affected.
During other instances of the interview, George told me that had a collection of insects
that he collects with his father. When I asked him to pick an animal and talk about what it needs
to live he said:
Probably the bugs, because me and my dad have the biggest collection of bugs
we’ve ever had, we put little pins in them and its cool. We put them in the picture
frame and there’s a glass, and sometimes we put bugs and pins. I have cool moths,
one I found on the ground it was dead and one my dad got by the gas station. Also
when my dad went to Chicago, he caught two pinching beetles and got them.
I: how do you know the names?
S: I have a book that tells us what their names are, I got it for my birthday.
The father who is a physicist confirmed this and said:
We spend a lot of time in summer collecting insects, and that’s one of the
activities he and I share. We have a field guide and we look it up and we read
about them where they live what they eat and what category they are in: is it an
outlet moth or a mantis fly, we find some really unusual insects.
George showed high level thinking in other questions as well and I asked the father about
how he may have answered at this level knowing the George has not formally learned about this
in school. His father said:

93

I care about conservation, so I give him seeds of ideas of how populations interact
in the ecosystem. But we also put him in camps so he’s going from camp to camp
to camp. He goes to nature camps and science camps, so I’m pretty sure he’s been
taught things like that from various camps. I cannot pinpoint the exact source of
his knowledge, but he goes to many camps, we have a membership at Impression
5, and he has quite a few books on sea creatures and classification books on
reptiles and amphibians that we use in our summer nature walks or camping. Also
my wife has a degree in elementary education so she’s collected tons and tons of
science books.
I asked him if George likes to read books the father said that: “George is not an avid
reader, he does read by himself but mainly we read for him”. When asking him about the shows
he watches the father mentioned that George is into Pokémon and Avatar Cartoons but not
necessarily into any movies or shows that show life styles or relationships among animals.
This information about George showed that he was very involved in science outside
school, specifically from camps and from discourse between him and his father. His answers
revealed high level thinking about the ecosystem for his age, and this was revealed in most of his
answers. However, the most prominent relationship between his interview and his experiences
was his answer about insects where he thought of insects as part of the ecosystem.
Case 7 S36G1M: Evan: The Environment Lover.
Table 30: Evan’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

Evan
6 years
st
1 grade
Reading, Music, Soccer, swimming and Legos
His high level answers to some questions and his
diversion to other science topics where he showed
knowledge of science content

Evan was identified by the teacher as a high achiever and she told me that he has an
interesting background. The interview with Evan was very interesting because he revealed high
level reasoning in most of the interview questions. However, he would often change the subject
94

to tell me some other scientific information that has nothing to do with ecosystem but was quite
interesting and scientifically sound information. This made me intrigued to learn about his ideas
and his learning style. I asked his mother for an interview and I was able to interview the whole
family including Evan. The interview was more of a conversation with the family about what
they do at home and what they learn.
Evan’s high level of reasoning was revealed when he was asked to select populations to
make his environment:
Evan: I’ll pick flowers because they grow on land, and I choose a tree and that
grows on land, I’ll choose snakes and worms and I’ll say they live on land, I’ll
pick the centipedes, I’ll pick the spider and the robins and the bushes, the crab, the
seaweed and that goes in the water (You know that seaweed used to be a plant in
the air then it got covered with water and became a water plant)
I: how do you know that?
Evan: I looked it up in internet
I: what else would you choose?
Evan: squirrel and all the rest
I: why did you choose them ALL?
Evan: because I like nature, animals eat other animals and some animals eat bugs
and if the bugs weren’t there for the birds then birds have no food and if no nuts,
then the squirrel can’t eat that’s why I chose the tree and squirrel and the frog
can’t live without the water because they have to live in soggy places and I want
to choose the birds because if they didn’t eat anything they couldn’t feed babies
and die. They need worms to survive. They all need each other to survive
I: how do they survive?
Evan: some survive and some don’t, trees usually survives during storms but
some don’t, but all those need to feed off each other to survive
Even if the above answer was long and sometimes digressing from the main question
(e.g., talking about seaweed), one could tell that Evan was thinking how all animals need each
other in the ecosystem. During another section of the interview, he also told me about how one
can tell the age of the tree from the circles on it. I was intrigued by his general knowledge of
science and his answers about the ecosystem. So, while having a conversation with all the

95

family, both of his parents emphasized the importance of science and how they would like to
push their kids to learn science:
Evan’s mother:, I came from a background where I struggled with math and
science, and I don’t want my kids to struggle, I’m an English and social studies
teacher and this comes easy and I’m pushing my kids away from that, they do
enjoy reading but math and science come first, he (referring to Evan’s father) also
made his career of that.
Evan’s Father: I also think that public schools do a good job teaching language
than they do science and math, so we make sure that we’re very very attentive to
those subjects so we make sure they get additional help if they needed, additional
work if needed. We make that even when they don’t have science homework;
they are always having something to think about.
And so when I asked the father about an example of such opportunities that he does with Evan,
the father said:
Evan’s Father: something that I didn’t realize I was doing until we started
discussing talking to you at home, but I’ve always done this with the kids, I drop
them off at school every morning and we’re always having something we’re
talking about, lately Ethan and I have been talking about glaciers and he can tell
you a lot about that, we went looking at the glacier marine.
I: have you discussed specifically the ecosystem with him?
Father: We do nature walks and camping a lot, so we try to do it organically and
when there are opportunities we stop and talk about it, I’m an environmental
scientist so it’s easy for us to find something and stop and talk about it while
walking. We’ve done hikes and force lands, and discussed trees and ecosystems,
we do life cycles and we might walk on the beach and talk about interactions of
birds and aquatic life.
In addition to his father putting an effort to teach him whenever the chance arises, I asked
about TV shows he mentions and his parents mentioned three times during the conversation that
the main show he watches is Magic School Bus. Moreover Evan’s idea of what happens to the
fish when it dies was the following: “Fish, bones disintegrates, I know it rots, the water will get
bad and fish will disintegrate, “so when I asked the parents how does he know the word
disintegrates the father immediately answered that this is definitely from Magic School Bus and
that he as a father likes the show because “I think the Magic School Bus is a very good primer to

96

start the conversation about something else, it’s a great place to start, it seems that it’s been a
very effective for both of our kids”.
Although Evan emphasized getting his information from camps, walks or even
researching on internet, his parents told me that Evan is an “avid reader” and reads and learns on
his own, and whenever they go to choose books the father mentioned, “We always make sure
that when he chooses books that at least one book is educational.”
With Evan’s case, it was clear that the father uses every opportunity to teach his son
scientific information about various science topics, and this was revealed during the interview
with Evan who expressed high level reasoning about the ecosystem, but who also wanted to talk
about other scientific topics such as finding the age of the tree from the circles or glaciers.

Case 8: S34G1F: Annie: The Grasshopper Lover.
Table 31: Annie’s Profile
Pseudonym
Age
Grade
Hobbies
Reason for parent interview selection

Annie
6 years
st
1 grade
Reading, Song writing, gymnastics, ballet
The teacher recommended her as one of the
candidates to talk to her parents

Annie was identified by her teacher as a high achiever. During the interview, Annie
exhibited sophisticated thinking when asked what would happen if all insects died and she said:
Annie: Some of these animals wouldn’t have food so nature die because they
wouldn’t have food to survive.
I: why would the whole nature die?
Annie: if these were gone and all the animals around don’t have food so they
would die.
However for most other interview sections her answers were mainly at levels 1.5 and 2.
For example when asked to choose populations to make up a viable environment she said:
97

“Frogs, seaweed, flowers, tree, birds, and squirrel, water and land and that’s it. I chose those
because these are the things we see most in nature.” This answer is based on concrete practical
experiences that she observes without thinking of other external reasons to how the ecosystem
functions.
When I asked Annie about how she learns about nature, her main answer was from nature
walks and observations in nature, and her mother mentioned that they have taken her to zoos and
the Field museum in Chicago and also hands-on experiences such as:
Annie’s Mother: Annie’s uncle is an entomologist and for Christmas, he gave her
Lubber grasshoppers. We have been able to watch them molt, mate and lay eggs.
We have talked about what eats the grasshoppers and she has experimented with
the types of food they eat or don't eat.
Since both of her parents are high school math teachers, they emphasize math and give
her problems to solve in informal setting. They also emphasize reading and so push her to read
daily. When asking about movies or TV shows Annie watches, the mother said that she only
watches cartoon movies and they not necessarily about animals. From the above interview,
Annie had several informal experiences, mainly observational or hands on experiences with
animals, but those experiences did not directly result in her thinking of the ecosystem.
Summary of the eight cases
To summarize these cases, I present in Table 32 the most frequent learning progression
level during the interview, brief description of the major source of information, and brief
statement that may or more not link the students’ interviews with their “sources of knowledge”.

98

Table 32: Relating Students Learning Progression Level to their Sources of Knowledge.
Student/
Grade

Student Achievement
Teacher
evaluation

Major source of Comments on relating the
knowledge
as source of information to the
identified by the students’ learning progression
Most frequent
student
and
the average
Learning
parent
progression
level

Jane (G4)

Middle

4

Olinda
(G4)

High

3

Ron (G3)

High

2

Cory
(G3)

High

1.5

Macy
(G2)

Middle

1.5

George
(G2)

Middle

3

Evan
(G1)

High

3

Annie
(G1)

High

1.5

Watching
Animal The connection between what
planet and reading fact she read about dinosaurs and
books about dinosaurs. transferring this knowledge to
the interview was clear in several
instances during the interview
Watching
Animal The connection between Animal
Planet and reading Planet was at one instance during
books especially about the interview but not necessarily
dogs
in all questions
Watching
Magic There was no clear relation
School
Bus
and between
his
“sources
of
reading
books
in knowledge” and the interview
general
answers
Reading about horses
There was no clear relation
between his readings that
interview answers
Going to zoos and There was no clear relation
personal observations
between her experiences and the
interview answers
Nature and science There was a relation about what
camps, learning with he learned with his father and
his father about insects from camps in many answers
during camping
Magic school bus and There was a relation between his
learning
with
his knowledge from media and the
father about various interview answers
science topics
Mainly
concrete There was no relation between
observations of the her experiences and interview
nature
answers

As seen from Table 32, two patterns appear: (1) teachers’ evaluation of the students’
ability level did not always match the students’ most frequent level of reasoning during the
interview and (2) it was not always possible to match the students’ answers with where they
acquired their knowledge.

99

With regard to first result, only Olinda in grade 4 and Evan in grade one were judged as
high achievers by the teacher and their answers were at high level during the interview.
However, Jane (G4) who had the highest frequency of level 4 answers was judged as a middle
achiever and George (G2) who also had high level answers was judged as a middle achiever by
the teacher. Moreover, students who were judged as high achievers by the teachers (Ron, Cory,
Annie) did not have a high frequency of high level answers during the interview. Macy
(G2),judged by the teacher as a middle achiever, had answers that were mainly at a low level.
Concerning the second observation, only with the students who performed at a high level
was it possible to trace some of their answers to the source of knowledge. With Jane (G4), the
main source was her extensive reading about the dinosaurs and Animal Planet. With Olinda
(G4), it was Animal Planet. With George (G2) it was the camps and learning about insects and
nature from his dad, and similarly with Evan (G1) it was learning science with his dad and Magic
School Bus. Despite those links that were revealed during the interviews with students and their
parents in some specific questions, one cannot say that it’s possible to identify the links to every
answer especially that no student was coded at the same level for all the questions.
Summary of the chapter
To summarize this chapter, I present the main findings of each research questions in
Table 33 below.
Table 33: Summary of the Findings for Each Research Question
Research Question
Main Findings
What are the learning
• After an iterative process of coding and recoding, the learning
st
progression consisted of four levels, the lowest being the
progression levels in 1 to
anthropomorphic level and the highest the level of causal reasoning
th
4 grade students’ system
that considered the network of feeding relationships. Levels 2, and
reasoning
about
3 were intermediate levels of causal reasoning. Level 2 was simple
ecosystems?
causal reasoning that begins to identify an external mechanism in
the phenomenon, and level 3 is semi-complex causal reasoning that
identifies more than external factor on the phenomenon.

100

Table 33 (cont’d)
•
•

The highest frequency of students’ answers fell in the lower levels
of 1.5 and 2 with very few answers at level 4 and no answers at
level 4 in the dynamic recycling category.

•

st th
How are 1 - 4 graders’
reasoning
similar
or
different across each grade
with respect to the two
questions above?

Level 1.5 was categorized in between level 1 and level 2 because it
considered concrete or practical reasoning.

Only four students used the scientific term “food chain” when
talking about the scenarios, and five students used the scientific
term “disintegrate” describing what happens to dead bodies.

•
•

There was a modest correlation between grade-level and two
questions of systemic interdependency: One question was
concerning the plants and another was concerning the poison.

st th
Where do 1 -4 graders
learn
about
systems
reasoning in ecology?

There was no correlation between gender or ability as identified by
the teacher and any of the interview questions

•

There was a modest correlation between systemic analysis and
systemic interdependency. There was an also modest correlation
within the systemic interdependency questions, but there was a
strong correlation between the question concerning the fox and that
concerning the mouse in the dynamic recycling category.

•

st th
How is 1 - 4 graders’
reasoning
across
and
within the various system
categories correlated?

•

When examining the consistency of students’ answers,
approximately 50% of each student’s answers were at the same
level across systemic reasoning categories. However 82.98% of
each student’s answers were consistent within the dynamic
recycling category.

•

Students identified various resources for their knowledge, the most
frequent of which was the media followed by personal experiences,
books, museums, school, parents, travel and websites. The most
mentioned media sources were Animal Planet followed by Magic
School Bus and Wild Kratts.

•

A close look at eight students whose parents participated in the
interviews showed that it was not always possible to relate the
resources of knowledge to the students’ performance in the
interview. Despite that, it was possible to identify, with three
students, the importance of science discourse that takes place at
home between the students and parents.

101

Having presented the results of this study in this chapter, I now turn to discussing those
results in the next chapter. The discussion will be centered around three main points; the first
addresses the identified learning progression and compares it with other empirical work about
learning progression and students’ reasoning in ecology, the second addresses the idea of
students’ consistency and some conjectures concerning the correlation results, and the third
addresses the idea of sources of knowledge and parents role in students’ education.

102

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
In this chapter I discuss the results that were presented in the previous chapter. After
comparing this work with other empirical studies on ecology and learning progressions, I discuss
the implications of this work for the definition of learning progressions in general, for the
evaluation of the proposed hypothetical learning progression in this study, and for the importance
of the sources of knowledge as a tool to inform learning progressions.
Comparing the Results to other Empirical Work
Overall the learning progression in this study consisted of levels 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4. The
lower anchor (level 1) represented anthropomorphic reasoning in which students transferred
human characteristics to non-human organisms. In this level, students did not reason using any
external cause but were concentrated on human feelings and analogizing animals and plants to
humans. These comparisons appeared subjective for each student depending on what they liked.
Following the anthropomorphic reasoning, the concrete or practical reasoning (level 1.5)
emerges where students consider factors with which they have concrete or practical experiences.
The next level is Level 2, simple causal reasoning, where students reason using a simple causeeffect relationship between populations directly related to each other. This reasoning differs from
concrete reasoning in that it moves away from practical and everyday reasoning and mentions
some scientifically sound ideas even though they are simple. Level 3 becomes more complex in
that students consider multiple factors related to the change in a given ecosystem, even though
those factors still only consider effects on populations that are directly related. At this level, the
students are partially considering several factors in the ecosystem but have not reached a stage
where they consider the change in part of the ecosystem influencing the whole ecosystem.
Finally at level 4, causal reasoning, students are able to consider a network of relations in the
103

ecosystem and this allows students to consider the ecosystem as a whole and not as separate
parts.
Taking one question from each category of systemic reasoning and looking at the frequency
of responses, one can find that there was different distribution of levels. Table 34 provides a
summary of the frequencies of one representative question from each category as an example.

Table 34: Frequencies for Each Category of Systemic Reasoning
Systemic
interdependency

Level 0
Level 1
Level 1.5
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Total

Systemic analysis

11

Circular
connectivity

What is the most
What would happen important element Choose
the
if all insects died?
in the system?
populations that
and make up your
environment that
can
function
properly
4
3
2
2
8
6
10
4
6
21
22
7
6
25
1
1
4
44
44
44

Dynamic
recycling
What
would
happen to the
body of the fox
when it dies?

4
32
7
1
0
44

Across all categories, level 4 had the lowest frequency. It is also noticeable that the level
with the highest frequency was different for different questions. The systemic interdependency
question concerning the insects resulted in approximately 57% of students giving answers at
level 3. Some parents mentioned that they teach their children about insects, so it is possible that
students were more exposed to insects in their everyday life and they knew that many
populations feed on insects. As a result, they could talk about the various populations that feed
on insects and reason about what would be affected by the absence of insects, which placed those
11

Bolded numbers refer to the highest frequency.
104

students at level 3. However, this knowledge may not lead to their having an ability to recognize
the web-like effect of how the change of the insect population could indirectly influence other
populations.
The highest frequency for systemic analysis question was level 2, recognizing only one
important factor that is food or oxygen as the most important factor in the environment.
Similarly, the highest frequency for the circular connectivity question was level 2 where students
recognized the importance of shelter (15 out 22 accounts) as a condition to make up the
environment. This kind of reasoning (level 2) is what Leach et al. (1996) call “descriptive
reasoning” which considers a factor with which students are most likely familiar – meaning that
students were likely familiar with the importance of oxygen and shelter to animals and plants.
However, even though this reasoning is logical and important (plants in fact give oxygen, and
animals seek shelter), it is not a reason that takes into consideration all other elements of the
system or at least more than one element.
When comparing the question of insects with others, one could see that insect question
yielded more answers at level 3 while the question of the most important element and
constructing environment yielded more answers at level 2. Students’ acquired knowledge about
each of those factors may play an important role in their reasoning. Students may know from
several resources (parents, stories, and media) that many animals feed on insects, and that
prompts them to think about it when asked the question. The concentration on the importance
plants of giving oxygen when asked about the most important element in the ecosystem may be
the result of being exposed to this topic in the curriculum that discusses the importance of plants.
The second grade teacher mentioned that this topic is part of what they teach them in science.
Moreover, the concentration on shelter as a condition to construct an environment concurs with
105

Lehrer and Schauble’s (2012 a, b) conception that elementary students’ conception of ecology in
general starts with anthropomorphic reasoning and develops to consider shelter as an important
factor and later students think of species interdependency and how populations interact with each
other and with the environment. Later in the discussion, I relate those inconsistencies to various
sources of knowledge of the students.
The question concerning dynamic recycling, which is represented in Table 10 by the
question about the fox, resulted in the highest frequency of level 1.5 with no students reasoning
at level 4. Almost one third of students demonstrated concrete or practical reasoning, which is
consistent with findings by Mohan et al. (2009), who found that most elementary and middle
school students’ ideas of carbon transforming processes were at lower levels. Mohan et al (2009)
characterized the lower anchor for their learning progression on carbon cycling as “forcedynamic reasoning,” which is similar to level 1.5 in this study and what I call concrete or
practical reasoning. Mohan et al. characterize the force dynamic reasoning as one where students
discuss macroscopic properties, “changes are explained by the visible changes of the object” (p.
685). Similar accounts were observed in this study when students were asked about the body of
the fox dying, and students mentioning the “rotting” process without going further into any
details of the process. This is related to what Leach et al. (1996) call “familiarity” of what
students see in nature.
However, whereas 10% of high school students revealed level 4 answers in Mohan et al.
(2009) work, no student in this study could identify the breakdown and recycling of matter when
asked about the fate of the fox’s body after it dies. Similarly, Eilam (2012) showed that even
after inquiry instruction about the ecosystem, 10th graders did not significantly improve their
reasoning about recycling of matter. This raises the challenge of appropriately identifying an
106

upper anchor that is scientifically sound and that is at the same time empirically validated.
Mohan and Plummer (2012) address this challenge and mention:
At the start of the defining process, it may be easy for learning progression researchers to
visualize the upper anchor, using guidance from standards, prior research, and years of
experience. Yet when researchers search for evidence of this level in the classrooms, they
rarely are able to obtain sufficient data. (p. 144)
In addition to the difficulty of the concept of matter recycling (i.e., having no level 4
answers at the dynamic recycling category), the results may suggest that this category is
qualitatively different from the rest. With the three categories of systemic interdependency,
systemic analysis and circular connectivity, there is causal reasoning that that requires analysis of
synthesis of the ecosystem at large. However, with the dynamic recycling category, the key
point is to understand that matter is broken down by decomposers and is recycled in the
ecosystem, meaning that the reasoning requires more in-depth understanding of microscopic
processes that result in the macroscopic phenomenon.
When comparing this learning progression to other work on ecosystem, there seems to be
nuances in the learning progression levels – especially the differentiation of the lower anchor.
This is because the learning progression in this study takes a “zoomed-in” approach (Gotwals,
2012) where it focuses on younger children’s reasoning. Griffith and Grant (1985) categorized
the food web model into “subordinate” and “super-ordinate” skills. Even though they did not use
the learning progression language, their study identified increasingly more sophisticated
reasoning at low and high levels. They found that there were five hierarchical levels in how
students reasoned about food webs, the lowest consists of students considering the direct
predator-prey effect and the highest consists of students considering the effect of changing one
population in one food chain on another population in a different food chain when there are

107

several routes for the effect to be transferred. In comparison, the learning progression levels in
this study differentiated younger students’ thinking even further. For example, Level 2 in my
learning progression consists of reasoning about direct predator-prey relationship and level 3
consists of reasoning about direct predator and several prey populations. This distinction was
useful for my sample because very few students considered two-way causal relationships or the
effect of changing one population in one food chain on another population in a different food
chain. Moreover, the direct predator-prey relationship, which was the first level in Griffith and
Grant study (1985), was at level 2 in my study where two lower levels (anthropomorphic and
concrete practical reasoning) were identified. One reason that can account for the difference is
that Griffith and Grant (1985) used a top-down approach that stemmed from the food web model
whereas this learning progression is more dependent on the bottom-up approached that honored
students’ ideas. Gotwals and Alonzo (2012) emphasize the importance of a bottom-up approach
in illuminating students’ ways of reasoning and teasing apart the middle levels that are usually
hardest to identify in the learning progression. The bottom-up approach allowed the distinction
of various middle levels for lower elementary students in this study; something that Griffith and
Grant’s work did not consider.
Despite this difference with Griffith and Grant’s (1985) work, similar kinds of reasoning
to this study were found by Leech et al. (1996) and Lennon and DeBoer (2008), who found that
even older students are more likely to consider effects on direct populations than those of
indirect populations. Green (1997), who performed a study on adults and gave participants cues
to consider more sophisticated relationships than simple linear predator prey relations, found that
participants were not always able to consider indirect relationships. One explanation for the
persistence of simple models could be what White (2000) calls the “influence resistance” (p.605)
108

model. He theorizes that students think of the change in one population as an influence and so
other populations will have a resistance to this change, and after this resistance, the net result
which is increasing or decreasing of population size will result. When the influence starts at one
point, the longer the food chain, the less the effect on the final population because of what he
called the “dissipation effect” (p. 605) which is similar to water ripples that decrease with
distance. However, even when the “influence resistance” model could explain the situations
when students did not think in a more sophisticated way about the food web, it could not explain
how some students were able to reason in a more sophisticated way.
Despite the similarities of the this work with other empirical work, the presence of
mixed-level reasoning was a major finding which has implications for the definition of learning
progressions, in general, and which is I discuss in the next section below.
Implications of the Results for the Definition of Learning Progressions
Zooming in and out
Even with the booming empirical work on learning progression, how to define a leaning
progression is a debatable issue. Specifically the content of the learning progression and the
context are used in various ways. Alonzo (2012) distinguishes between broad learning
progressions and narrow learning progressions. In the former, the learning progression spans
several age groups (elementary, middle and high school) and considers big ideas such as carbon
transforming processes. However, in the latter, the learning progression is more focused and can
consider a specific topic such as floating and sinking and a specific grade level. Mohan and
Plummer (2012) emphasize the goal of the learning progression in determining the grain size:
broader learning progressions serve to refine the standards and large-scale assessment, while

109

narrower learning progressions serve to support curriculum and instruction and formative
assessment in the classroom. Gotwals (2012) points to the importance of “zooming in” and
“zooming out” of the learning progression. Zooming in allows one to see the trees while
zooming out allows one to see the forest. Even though the sample was from different grade
levels, I consider the learning progression in this study a narrower learning progression that has
implications for curriculum and instruction and sheds light on the specific content of students’
systemic reasoning of the ecosystem. Therefore, I consider this learning progression one that is
zoomed-in at specific age group with a specific focus. With this zooming in, the idea of mixedlevel reasoning was clearly revealed, which has implications for the defining of learning
progressions.
Even though learning progression researchers do not claim that students’ learning
pathways are linear, there is, however, the assumption that students could be identified within
one level for a specific concept. However, several researchers have alerted against considering
students in one level. For example, Lehrer and Schauble (2009) believe that students exhibit
variation in their reasoning and so identifying students to strictly one level is not very common.
Alonzo and Steedle (2009) found that students’ ideas about force and motion do not always
belong to the same level for assessment questions that targeted the same concept in different
contexts. If this is true, the idea of defining learning progression as having clear-cut levels may
be problematic. Gotwals and Songer (2010) found that the same students can demonstrate
different levels of reasoning depending on specific questions. For example questions that
required students to reason about algae resulted in lower levels than those requiring students to
reason about big fish and small fish. They called this inconsistency the “messy middle” where
the same student can reason at one level in one question and at another level in another question
110

addressing systemic interdependency. However, they did not reveal mixed-level reasoning where
a student at level 3 or 4 was also showing reasoning at lower levels in the same assessment or
think aloud account. Unlike Gotwals and Songer (2010), this study reveals all levels of the
learning progression can be messy.
Explanations of mixed level reasoning
When looking at the results of this study, some students exhibited reasoning at levels 2, 3
or 4 also showed reasoning at lower levels of 1.5 and 1 in a specific conversation. The highest
frequency of mixed-level reasoning occurred in the circular connectivity question that required
students to construct their environment choosing some populations; in this question, 22 out of 44
students revealed mixed-level reasoning. This question was very open-ended, requiring students
to build a system rather than analyzing an existing system. Therefore, students could consider
several factors for constructing their environment including their personal liking or relating their
choice to human characteristics which resulted in anthropomorphic reasoning. Even if one
considers that this specific question required a different skill from others, the mixed-level
reasoning was also existent among other categories of systemic reasoning. For example many
students mentioned that if a predator population died the prey would not be eaten but it will also
be happy; thus including simple causal reasoning and anthropomorphic reasoning at the same
time. Moreover, some students mentioned that if the fox died, its body would rot and its family
would be sad which means that more than one kind of reasoning is revealed in such an answer.
One explanation for mixed-level-reasoning is to think generally of children’s reasoning
at this age. Piaget (1966) distinguishes between the world of the child, which is full of
intentions and subjectivity and results in what he calls “transductive” reasoning, and that of
the scientist which depends on “physical determinism” and calls for “deductive” reasoning.
111

He then classifies the stages the child passes through in order to reach a reasoning of
“objective” causality. The child first starts with subjective reasoning (e.g., a pebble is heavy
because he thinks so), to reciprocity (ability to see different points of views like the pebble
is light for him but heavy for water), and then to relativism (relating the concept to others
such as relating the density of one object to that of the other). With each of those, the child
moves from egocentrism where he couldn’t differentiate the objects in the world from
himself to a more objective reality where concepts exist on their own. However, even when
the child grows, there remains a tendency to go back to “animism” or what is called
anthropomorphic reasoning in this study because “the child’s thought is in no way
organized” (p. 292). Moreover, even in an adult stage there is still some “adherence” to
subjectivity, or as Piaget states:
From our present point of view, therefore, there is never complete objectivity: at every
stage there remains in the conception of nature what we might call “adherences”,
fragments of internal experiences which still cling to the external world. (p. 244)
When looking at students’ answers in this study, it is possible that the students who
exhibited mixed-level reasoning were maintaining an “adherence to subjectivity” that is
explained by a domain-general developmental stage for students. However, it is also possible
that students who are exhibiting anthropomorphic reasoning are not necessarily at lower levels.
Zohar and Ginossar (1998) advocate breaking the taboo of students’ adherence to
anthropomorphic explanations and found that high school students resort to anthropomorphic
explanations because it was easier to communicate or understand. Recently, Alonzo (2010)
recognized that having mixed-level reasoning may be one way for students to make sense of
their everyday discourse as they learn the scientific discourse and make progress in their
scientific reasoning.
112

As such, the results of having students reason at mixed-levels reflects back on how to include
this reasoning in the learning progression. Rather than thinking of a learning progression as
having pure levels, one could then expand the concept of levels to think of hypothetical learning
progressions that takes into account mixed-level reasoning. The importance of including the
mixed-level reasoning is shedding light on the non-linear way of students’ reasoning. Most
learning progression research agrees that studying learning progressions requires longitudinal
studies of same student sample. Because these longitudinal studies have not been completed, the
idea of mixed-level-reasoning could be one missing link in the status quo studies. This allows us
to understand how students, especially early elementary students, are reasoning about the
scientific topics. In fact, Jin and Anderson (2012) mention the challenge of having distinct levels
and their revised learning progression identifies students who include force dynamic reasoning
and school science words in their accounts of carbon transforming processes thus referring to the
messiness or mixed-level reasoning.
Thinking of how to include mixed-level learning continues the discussion of how best to
define learning progressions, however, it is also important to consider the framework used for the
learning progression in this study and discuss whether the results supported this framework or
not.
Evaluation of the Validity of this Hypothetical Learning Progression
The framework used for this learning progression is adopted from Chandler and Boutilier
(1992) who identify four categories of systemic reasoning: systemic interdependency, systemic
analysis, circular connectivity and dynamic recycling. The results of this study, specifically the
correlation among various systemic reasoning categories has implications for this framework. In
the previous discussion about defining a learning progression, it was clear that many students
113

were inconsistent in their reasoning about various interview questions. The correlations between
items in systemic reasoning were modest; and about 50% of students showed consistency across
levels. . This provides evidence that the categories of the systemic reasoning framework are
distinct and that they are independent aspects of students’ systemic reasoning. Each one of these
categories was targeting a different element of system and the results showed that students’
answers were indeed different in each category. However, in addition to zooming-out at the
results across the categories, it is worthwhile to zoom-in within each category, specifically
within the systemic interdependency and dynamic recycling where there was a set of questions
addressing this category.
For systemic interdependency, there were weak to modest correlations between most of
the questions. There was no correlation between the question concerning the influence of loss of
the fox population and that concerning the influence of the loss of fish or the insects’
populations. An important point to consider is how the population participated in the food web.
This means that the more the population is part in several food chains in the ecosystem, the more
likely there is a correlation between this population and other populations in the system. For
example, the birds are related to foxes, fishes, insects and plants. The answers concerning the
birds showed a moderate correlation with all other agents, and this was similar for the plants,
where the answers concerning the plants were correlated with all other populations. However,
the fox is part in as many food chains as the birds or plants so there was no correlation between
the fox and fish or between the fox and the insects. When considering the consistency of answers
within this category 59% of responses had consistent levels which did not give conclusive
evidence that students’ ideas were consistent of not.

114

In the category of dynamic recycling, the strongest correlation was between the question
concerning the fox and that concerning the mouse. This is not surprising knowing that the fox
and the mouse were both terrestrial animals and students likely expected that the same thing will
happen to both bodies once they were dead. There was a modest correlation between the question
concerning the mouse and that concerning the grass, as well as between the question concerning
the fish and that concerning the grass. However, there was no correlation between the question
concerning the grass and that concerning the fox. In many answers concerning the grass, the
students said that the grass dries up, changes color and is blown away by the wind. Therefore,
they were not regarding the grass similar to other living organisms where it can also decay. This
might be related to the everyday experiences of students when they that see that grass dries up
and not necessarily “rot” as they see with other animals. Moreover the consistency of students’
answers within the category of dynamic recycling was the highest (82.95%). Jin (2010) also
found that students accounts of carbon transforming across various types of interview questions
was around 80%, which suggests that students think of carbon transferring in similar ways across
different contexts.
There is no clear evidence for the consistency in student thinking about systemic
interdependency but there is more supportive evidence for consistency within dynamic recycling.
This could either mean that the questions within systemic interdependency were addressing a
different concept or could mean that students were inconsistent about the answers. The latter is
more likely because Gotwals and Songer (2010) found similar inconsistency for questions
addressing systemic interdependency and called those the “messy middles”. A possible reason
for consistency in student reasoning about dynamic recycling (but not in systemic
interdependency) is the similarity of the questions concerning dynamic recycling in that the
115

process of rotting could be thought of as the same for students. However for systemic
interdependency the students’ answers depended on how much they knew about each population
or the sources of knowledge that students capitalize on and how that influences the learning
progression research, which is discussed in the next section..
Implications of the Sources of Knowledge for Learning progression Research
The idea of capitalizing on students’ background knowledge and primary discourse has
been used by many socio-cultural researchers in the field, especially for those who worked
within urban settings or ethnic minorities. For example, Moll et al. (1992) emphasize the
importance of “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge” (p. 133).
Other researchers emphasized students’ primary discourse, traditions, and everyday knowledge
that allows them to bridge the gap between students’ lives and school science. For example,
Calabrese Barton and Tan (2009) identified the various “ funds of knowledge” and the discourses
that students bring with them to the classroom in a low income urban school. Their study shows
how teachers, with explicit attention to discourse, can adapt instructional approaches to
legitimize the family, community, peer culture and popular culture sources which are the
knowledge sources from which various discourses emerge, as meaningful and appropriate tools
in science learning. In this study, I define the sources of knowledge as the collection of ideas and
experiences that students acquired from various resources like parents, relatives, media, peers,
books, school or others.
The learning progression literature has mainly adopted a cognitive perspective to identify
various levels of reasoning. However, some researchers acknowledge the importance of a sociocultural approach to learning progressions if the learning progression is to be successful in
designing effective instruction. The learning progression in this study was mainly descriptive,
116

but for the learning progression to have more explanatory power, the reasons why students think
in a certain way and the where students acquire their ideas could help move forward with
appropriate instructional material. Alonzo (2010) mentions adopting a discourse approach to the
learning progression could help address the challenges of students’ inconsistencies and the
students’ use of everyday language. In this study, I have adopted the idea of sources of
knowledge as a tool to shed light on where students acquire their ideas and reasoning. I discuss
how the sources of knowledge can be used to explain several parts of the results as well as how
the sources of knowledge can inform a curriculum that honors students’ ideas.
The results of this study indicate that there were many inconsistencies among students’
answers, little use of the scientific terms, and a modest correlation between grade level and some
questions of systemic interdependency. The sources of knowledge can help understand those
results because understanding where students acquire their information is important to
understand ways of the reasoning.
Inconsistencies and students’ sources of knowledge
As mentioned in previous sections, the results of this study showed that there were
inconsistencies of students’ answers about the levels. It is possible that students have learned that
some populations can influence the population than others and so once asked about what they
already have more information about, they could reveal higher level answers than with other
populations. For example George and his father mentioned that they have a hobby of collecting
insects and learning about their life cycles and how they can be classified by using specialized
books. Other students mentioned how much they learn about birds from the website
www.birds.com; therefore, the various knowledge students acquired could explain the
inconsistencies. In addition to the inconsistencies, the results showed mixed-level reasoning, and
117

as discussed above, some students could utilize a higher level in addition to anthropomorphic
reasoning. Knowing that half of the students mentioned the media as a resource of information, it
is possible the students’ anthropomorphic reasoning lingers because of how the media attributes
human characteristics to animals in cartoon movies. For example, Jane and her mother
mentioned that Jane loves The Lion King and she has watched it several times on TV and even in
a play. Therefore, students’ information resources and how much they know about certain
population could influence how they answer the questions. Fisch et al. (2011) found that students
who use various media platforms could transfer their learning more to other situations
specifically problem solving skills. This emphasizes the influence of the media on students’
knowledge about the topic.
Scientific terms and students’ sources of knowledge
With regard to the use of scientific term, only a handful of students mentioned those
terms (four students mentioned “food chain” and five students mentioned “disintegrate”).
However, there was a difference between those using the term “food chain” and those using the
term “disintegrate”. In the former, students revealed partial understanding of the meaning of the
term “food chain”, but in the latter students did not reveal any understanding of the term
“disintegrate”. Students who mentioned the food chain did not use the word energy to explain
transfer of energy in the ecosystem; however, they used the language of “eating” and were able
to explain that some that some animals eat each other. However when students used the word
“disintegrate” in the context of explaining what happens to the dead body they were not able to
go beyond saying breaking down or reiterating the word “disintegrate”. This means that they
could not trace matter in the system. For both terms, students mentioned that they learned them
from the media. Understanding each term scientifically requires understanding the flow of
118

energy in the case of using the word “food chain” and recycling of matter in the case of using the
word “disintegrate.” Gunckel et al. (2012), and Jin and Anderson (2012) classify such accounts
as “naming” as opposed to “explaining.” In naming, students are able to use scientific terms and
sometimes definitions without actually deep reasoning of what is going on. Alonzo (2010)
emphasizes the importance of understanding students’ definitions of scientific terms and
comparing their discourse to scientific discourse. One way to understand those terms is to
understand where they have learned them from. When I investigated where students have learned
about those terms some students and the parents mentioned the media as the source of
information. In an informal analysis to one the Magic School Bus episodes about marine
ecosystem, I noticed that the episode provided simple definitions that emphasized macroscopic
relationships rather than energy or matter transfer. Not surprisingly, students used what they saw
in the media as their explanations of those words and not necessarily how scientific discourse
would explain it. What is important here is to recognize that the media is important for students
and to think of ways of capitalizing on this resource to help students move up in the learning
progression. One way of doing this is to use some of the popular shows in the classroom to start
conversations and supplement inquiry activities to construct scientific models of the ecosystem.
Correlations of grade level and students’ sources of knowledge
With regard to the results concerning the correlation between grade-level and learning
progression level, the only significant correlation was that between grade level and systemic
interdependency, however the correlation was very modest. When looking at the specific
questions which resulted in this correlation, the two questions, one predicting the effect loss
plants on the ecosystem, and the other about predicting the effect of adding poison that kills
insects on the rest of ecosystem were the ones that resulted in the correlation. Even though the
119

correlation was modest, it is possible to relate this correlation to students’ sources of knowledge
and how much they are exposed to the importance of plants and pollution in the environment as
they grow older. Plants are a typical part of any ecological system and the older students grow,
the more they learn about plants. The second grade teacher mentioned that she teaches students
about plants and she said:
I teach the plant unit in the spring. They bought us some geraniums, so I do the
experiment one with water with sun, one without sun, change variables and then if any
one survives they can take it home for them. I teach them about the needs of plants and
the importance of plants for us and for the environment (2nd Grade Teacher)
It is therefore understandable that students of older grades capitalized on what they have
learned especially that many students mentioned that they acquire their information from the
teacher. This means that students were transferring what they have acquired in one situation to
the interview questions about the ecosystem.
Concerning the question of the poison, it is possible that older students have learned
more about the pollution and the question concerning the poison led them to think in this
direction. For example, when students were asked if they were to imagine doing something bad
to the environment a typical answer from 3rd and 4th grade students included the idea of
pollution; S3G4F said:
I would put a lot of pollution and oil in river, because fish can’t breathe because oil came
inside of them and animals can’t drink the water. Probably I would put poisonous things
around like poisonous grass and they would get poisoned and die.
Moreover, many of the parents mentioned how they want their children to be aware of the
conserving the environment and preventing pollution. For example George’s father mentioned
“I care about conservation so I give him seeds of ideas of how populations interact in the
ecosystem and how it is important to keep a clean environment because wastes can disturb the
120

balance in the environment.” Moreover Jane’s mother mentioned, “Every year we go to the open
house of water treating center, so they talk about how landfills are made or how they recycle the
water, and how to clean water and why it’s important.” The importance of plants and the idea of
pollution are ideas that students could be exposed to more as they grow especially from the
curriculum and from their parents who emphasize the importance keeping a clean environment
and preserving plants.
Having mentioned the importance of sources of knowledge in explaining the results, it is
also important to consider students’ sources in curriculum and instruction, which is what I
discuss in the next section.
Students’ sources of knowledge as a way to structure curriculum and instructional
materials
The results from students’ accounts of their sources of knowledge revealed that the
media, books they read at home, museums, parents, and personal experiences are among the
ways they acquire their information. This means that capitalizing on those resources in
curriculum and instruction may be one way to help students progress in the learning progression.
Interviews with some students and their parents revealed that media, books and personal
experiences with some students resulted in students thinking at a high level in the learning
progression. Many students and parents reported the Magic School Bus as a major source of
their knowledge. Therefore, one could think of such episodes as primers to start a unit on
ecosystems and follow it up with more advanced scientific concepts. Rancone (2002) reports on
a case where students who were taught about the solar system using the Magic School Bus series
retained the information more that those that used traditional school material.

121

Fisch et al. (2011) support this because their research on fourth grade students’ learning
found that students who used various media were able to perform retain more information and
perform better in solving mathematical problems. Therefore it is possible to think of some
episodes of TV shows such The Magic School Bus as triggers for learning, and then compliment
other concepts that students are required to learn. This is not to say that the media will be a
substitute to learning. Metz (1995) states that even if Piaget made the claim that young children
require concrete tools to learn, this does not mean that the product of the learning is concrete. In
other words using concrete base of learning could allow students to learn abstract concepts such
as cardinal numbers. This means that concrete tools for learning need to be supplemented with
model based reasoning. Even Joanna Cole, who is the author of the Magic School Bus,
acknowledges the importance of backing up the media with science concepts (Roncone , 2002)
and she states:
If you don’t follow it up with real science education, then the kid is at a complete
disadvantage. So I think that most of the science that you see in books and TV, they’re
wonderful, but they can’t be everything. And very much aware of that when I’m doing
my books. (p.13).
Thinking of a curriculum that includes media would be consistent with the bottom-up
approach of the learning progression that honors students’ ideas and interests. Complementing
that with big ideas and important scientific concepts could allow students to move student to
higher levels in the learning progression.
Parental Involvement
Another important factor that was revealed in the results was the kind of parents’
involvement. It is known that parents have a major influence on their children’s education. Wang
and Wildman (1995) found that parents’ encouragement of their children’s study resulted in
122

higher science achievement in seventh grade students. Similarly McNeal (1999) found that
parents’ involvement in their children’s lives resulted in higher science achievement in eighth
and tenth grade students for various socio-economic classes. A major part of the involvement
was related to the opportunities that parents provide their children with in order to learn science
such as reading books and having discussions. However, those studies were related to parents’
support of formal school learning. In this study, I explored parents’ role in helping students’
learn informally and how that translated into ideas about systemic ecological reasoning. From the
results of the case study, all parents provided their children with opportunities such as taking
them to the museums, zoos, or buying books for them. However, only few parents (Evan’s
father, Jane’s mother, George’s father) supplemented the experiences with discourse that
promoted learning science and all three students revealed high level reasoning. This suggests that
the informal experiences without specific focus of learning the science concepts were not
sufficient to for students to think at higher level of the learning progression. For example, Evan’s
father explicitly stated that he creates opportunities for his children to teach them about science
because he believes that science is undermined in school at the expense of mathematics and
literacy. One thing to note about Evan’s father is that he’s an environmental scientist, which
may influence how he handles the science. A similar situation was with George’s father who is a
physicist and he emphasizes that he cares about “conservation” and prepares several science
projects that he develops with George.
Even though it is not possible to ask every parent to be a science teacher at home
whereby they can create intentional learning opportunities for their children to learn science, it is
possible to think how parent-school interaction could foster students’ learning. For example if
one parent is an environmental scientist and the class is discussing ecology, it is possible to
123

invite this parent to share an interest science discovery or information that this parent finds
interesting to know. Strieb (2010) explains the importance of the parent-teacher interaction and
discusses ways of effective communication with parents from her long teaching career as a
kindergarten and first grade teacher. She mentions that newsletters are not only important in
communicating to parents what their children are doing, but also important in suggesting to
parents how they could contribute to what their children at home or in school. This strategy can
open up the floor for parent’s involvement and contribution to the children’s learning.
Summary of the discussion
In this chapter I discussed how results from this study have implications for the
discussion concerning defining learning progressions in the field, on the framework of the
learning progression used in this study, and on the importance of the sources of knowledge to
explain the results and be included as part of learning progression research. Perhaps the main
implications of those results on the learning progression research is the presence of
inconsistencies and mixed-level reasoning in addition to the importance of students’ sources of
knowledge in constructing knowledge. If one considers this learning progression a “zoomed-in”
view of the students’ reasoning, then it important to think of ways to include inconsistencies as
part of the learning progression. Moreover, knowing the importance of what students bring with
them to school, it is important to capitalize on what students already value and know in order to
design curriculum and instructional approaches. This does not mean that one should avoid
teaching students model based reasoning or scientific models that make sense of the world, it just
means having students’ resources as a starting point may be beneficial in helping them develop
scientific model based reasoning.

124

Limitations of the Study
Even though this study revealed a lot of information about students’ reasoning and
sources of knowledge regarding systemic reasoning of the ecosystem, there were some
limitations that I address below.
The first limitation concerns the sample size and sample nature. Even though this study is
mainly qualitative in nature, a sample more than 10 or 12 students per grade would be required in
order to generalize from the results. Similarly the case studies included only eight parents, so
more cases would be beneficial to learn more about a larger range of students, their sources of
knowledge, and the influence of parents on their children’s science education. Moreover, the
nature of the sample was suburban students, so a more diverse group would be required in order
to validate the learning progression.
The second limitation concerns the research instrument. While interviews are very
appropriate to work with young students, this interview constituted of pictures only that
represented the ecosystem. A revised version of the interview could probably be a computersimulated system which would be interactive or showing students’ different types of ecosystems
such as marine ecosystem and terrestrial ecosystem. Moreover, the word “relationship” was
understood differently by students. When asked whether there was any “relationship” among
populations, only 15 students identified animals feeding on each as a relationship, while 16
students considered a relationship to mean interaction between biotic and abiotic factors and six
students thought of a relationship as a beneficial relationship to both parties so if there is harm
there is no relationship. Alonzo (2010) found a similar result with the word of “force” and
“motion” and advocated taking a discourse view to learning progression. Therefore, the language
difference between adults and children could also have been a limitation of the study.
125

Future Research
Building on the results and the limitations of this study, I envision the following research
agenda that can help address some the questions that were left unanswered:
A tradition of the learning progression research is the design-based research (Cobb et al,
2003; Collins et al., 2004) that stipulates refining the design in an iterative process. Therefore
taking the results of this study as another starting point, I could take a larger and more diverse
sample to try and validate the learning progression. Expanding the sample to include more
students and more diverse populations such as students in urban setting or English language
learner would give more valid results for the learning progression especially when dealing with
inconsistent answers or mixed-level reasoning. Moreover taking into account some limitations of
the instrument, I could think of improving the interview to include more dynamic system and
then have a conversation about it. Quellmalz and Pelligrino (2009) point out to the importance of
software such as SimScientists to assess students understanding of the ecosystem. Organizing
interview questions around such a dynamic system can help overcome some limitations of a
static picture as a model of the ecosystem
Another important implication of this study is the importance of student’s sources of
knowledge in shaping their reasoning. I envision future research concerning learning progression
to include in addition the cognitive identification of the levels, the socio-cultural identification of
the students’ sources of knowledge and relating that to the learning progression levels. Therefore
I envision future research to include more parent samples and more explicit questions about the
specific answers pertaining to specific levels of learning progression. This way we could learn
more about the way students reason and could directly relate certain ways of reasoning to
specific sources of knowledge.
126

Following on the point above, the explicit influence of the media on students’ learning
progression is an interesting question to pursue. Most people would not debate the influence of
the media on students and young children, but what is debated is the whether the influence is
positive or not. Neil Postman (1982) theorizes that the idea of childhood requires a distinction
between the personality of the child and that of the adult. Interests, games and life of a child in
the 1950s was separated from the parents, something that was more the case from the 1970’s on.
He considers communication between the child and the parent as a process, “whereby
information became uncontrollable, whereby home and school lost their commanding place as
regulators of child development” (p. 90). Gerbner (1987) reiterates the importance of the media
in shaping the public image specifically that about science. He states:
Yet a single episode on a popular prime-time program, or even a soap opera reaches more
people than all other educational efforts put together. More important television reaches
those who receive no other information about science. (p. 115)
Gerbner (1987) also found that television perpetuates negative images about sciences.
However, not everyone shares the belief that media has negative influence on the public. The
“framework for evaluating impacts of informal science projects” mentions the positive effect of
the media in understanding science concepts and influencing attitudes towards science and
changing behavior to reduce carbon footprint. One study showed that adult participants showed
more understanding of global warming when they were exposed to a two hour television series
about global warming and this understanding was manifested by their drawings, multiple choice
answers, and individual interviews (Friedman, 2008). Moreover, a major importance of the
media is the issue of trust. Anderson et.al (2012) found that the media plays an important factor
in the public trust of science and scientists and promoting positive attitudes towards scientists
and science institution. Those different views about the media raise the questions of how it could

127

influence students’ learning progression about systems reasoning in ecology. Thus, one of my
future research agenda is to investigate this relationship in depth.
Finally, the learning progression in this study was what is called the “status quo” learning
progression because explicit instruction of the topic did not take place. As important as this
learning progression is in terms of finding out what are the different levels of students and their
sources knowledge, the ultimate aim of learning progression is to relate it to curriculum and
instruction. Therefore, an integral part of this work will be to investigate the learning progression
of students when exposed to a curriculum that capitalizes on students’ sources on knowledge and
moves them to think of scientific models of the system. Building on the results of the study, I
plan to investigate the effect of a media infused curriculum. I envision a curriculum where TV
shows and software models are used in tandem to support students learning of ecosystem.

The

research on how the learning progression is influenced by instruction is essential not only to
improve the learning progression research but also to improve the current instruction that is
supposed to go hand in hand with the learning progression.

128

APPENDICES

129

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONS FOR THREE CATEGORIES OF SYSTEMIC REASONIG
Scenario I: Exploring the diagram below.
Appendix I-A
In this scenario, I will first show a picture without the arrows and try to see how they answer
certain general questions, after that I show the same pictures with arrows and have more specific
questions about the relationships

Figure 8: First Scenario for Students (Adopted from Dagher et al., 1999)
1- Look that picture, and tell me where you think you can find such an environment in
nature?
2- Have you visited such a place in nature? With whom? What did you do there?
3- Do you think there are any relations among the organisms above? Do they interact with
each other? How?
4- Pick one animal and tell me what you think it needs in such an environment to survive?
5- What other things does the animal you picked (e.g. frog, fish, or wolf) need to survive?
6- How does the animal you picked (e.g. frog or fish or wolf) depend on other living things
to survive?
7- Do you think plants are important in this environment, why?

130

Appendix I-B
After those general questions I will show them the same picture with the arrows and try
to ask them more detailed questions

Figure 9: Scenario with Arrows (Adopted from Dagher et al, (1999)
1- What does the picture show?
2- How would you explain the relationships among owl, insect, frog and plants? What do
you think the arrows mean?
3- Which organisms or parts of the environment are the most important in keeping this
system working?
4- Do you think that this environment is missing something to keep living or is what is
shown enough to keep it living?
5- Which one of those organisms would be the most in number?
6- What do you think may happen if all insects disappeared?
7- What do you think will happen if all black birds disappeared?
8- What do you think will happen if all the foxes disappeared?
9- What do you think will happen if all the fish disappeared?
10- What do you think will happen if all the grass, trees, and green plants disappeared?
11- For the fox to survive and have babies, what would it need?
12- For fish to survive and have babies, what would it need?
13- If the fox died, what do you think will happen to the fox after one week? After two
weeks? After one month? After one year?
14- If grass died, what do you think will happen to the grass after one week? After two
weeks? After one month? After one year?
15- If the fish died, what do you think will happen to it with time?
16- If the mouse died, what do you think will happen to it with time?
131

17- If someone sprayed a poison that killed insects, would any other creature in the above
picture be affected?
18- If you were to do something “bad” to the environment, what would that be and how
would you do it?
19- If you were to do something positive to the environment above, what would that be and
how would you do it?
20- Name what is living in the picture above, name what is not living? Is there a relation
between them?
21- Have you learned about this subject before? Where?
22- What are your experiences with animals and nature?
23- How did you learn about feeding habits of different living things in nature?
24- You seem to know a lot about this topic, where have you learned all of that from?

Knowing that a lot of species interaction in the food web entails predator prey relations, I
specifically probed students’ ideas of predator-prey relations (Figure 10) in order to find out how
they think when we isolate one predator and one prey in the environment.

Figure 10: Feedback Loop Reasoning
1- Assume in the environment above, all animals died and what was left was 200 foxes and
200 rabbits, how many rabbits and will we have after one week? After one month? After
6 months? After one year? And why?
132

2- Assume that all animals died except the mice? What would happen to those mice after
one week? After one month, after 6 months? And after one year?
3- Have you learned about this subject before? Where?

133

APPENDIX II: CIRCULAR CONNECTIVTY QUESTIONS
Scenario II (Constructing a food web)
The picture of question (Figure 11) that has been used by Leach et at. (1995). The original form
of this question was choose 6 of those organisms that could live together for a long period of
time without needing anything, and the second question was to choose the population which is
highest in number. When using this question with some pilot students, I found out that students
often chose them in pairs, and students were often confused about the picking 6 organisms.
Therefore, I decided to use the organisms but modify the question in order to help me elicit the
students’ “circular connectivity” about the system. I will have each organism on a card and so I
will present those cards on the table and tell the students that each organism represents its
species.
Having each of the following as separate picture I will ask them the following

Figure 11: Circular Connectivity Scenario (Adopted from Leach et al., 1995)
1- Now we will play a game where you get to create an environment. Knowing that you
have the box in the center (sun, clouds, land, water), imagine an environment in nature
and then pick as many of the other pictures as you think is necessary that can be in this
environment?
2- Give an name to this environment
3- Why did you choose the ones you did?
4- Draw lines between the ones that have a relation between each other?
5- Tell me the story of this environment of how everything lives in this environment?
6- Which one of the populations you choose would be the most in numbers? Why do you
say so?
7- Have you learned about this subject before? Where?

134

APPENDIX III: TEACHER INTERVIEWS
I am trying to find out where students get their knowledge so I have some general questions
about the science curriculum and then specific questions about certain students and any
experiences you may know about.
1- Do they follow a specific science curriculum? What book or curriculum? would it be
possible to have a look at it
2- How many science periods do they teach per week?
3- Do students have a science book or copybook they take home?
4- What is the policy for science homework? Do they get any science homework?
5- Do they receive a grade for science that they take home?
6- What are the science topics that are covered?
7- Do you cover the same topics every year or does curriculum change from year to year?
8- Do you cover topics such as living non living, what plants need to live, what animals
live in a pond or forest and they need to live, food chains and food webs, how to
preserve the environment?
9- Do you show them any movies or videos in science? Specifically about how
populations of animals and plants interact in the ecosystem? Any field trips or nature
walks?
10- When you told me what levels the students are, it was their overall achievement, do
you have a general grade for the students that parents know about or that is used
internally?
11- In addition to what is taught in school, some students have information from home, do
you find that some students read or have other activities that makes them ahead of
others in what they know? any of the ones In the list? Do their parents teach them or
do they expose to books or do the kids themselves watch any movies and then come
and talk about it in class? (ASK about specific students in mind)

135

APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW WITH ONE PARENT OF (S7G4F)
I was impressed by your daughter’s answers about the ecosystem and so I would like to know
about the experiences that Josie is exposed to, I asked her and she said that reads books, she
watches planet earth and other experiences, I would like to know more about those experiences.
This would help me think of how students’ home experiences expands their science knowledge
specifically in the topic of biodiversity.
1- You have mentioned in the email that she’s been the science person at home, why is that?
2- What learning style does she have, does she like to learn on her own?
3- What does she read? She mentioned the dinosaur book and how they got extinct? Do you
know about that book, Do you discuss what she reads? What other books does she read?
4- Does she read on her own, do you have reading sessions together? Does she lean with
peers?
5- What movies does she watch about animals and how they interact with each other?
mentioned she goes to the cottage in summer, and she observes and the animals and how
they live, do you all do that, or does she do it on her own? Any interesting story you can
tell me?
6- You’re a teacher and have an experienced and inside view as to what kids should know.
how does that influence how you direct your kid’s learning? Do you discuss what they
learn in school at home
7- What are some of the experiences that you make sure your kids have? That you feel will
help them learn school curriculum, whether science or other subjects

8- Anything you would like to tell me about what Josie’s experiences, story of learning
about the ecosystem of animals and plants?
9- How are your eldest daughter’s experiences with learning about the ecosystem similar or
different from your younger daughter?

136

APPENDIX V: SAMPLE INTERVIEW ORGANIZATION FROM S23G2M
Table 35: Transcript of Circular Connectivity question for S23G2M
1- If you were to create your own
environment having water sun
clouds and soil, choose some of
those organisms that can live
there in such a way that the
environment is working well?
2- Why did you choose the ones you
did?
3- Are there any relations among the
ones you chose? Why?
Tell me the story of this environment of
how everything lives in this environment?

Which one of the populations you choose
would be the most in numbers? Why do
you say so?
You seem to know a lot about this, where
did you learn all of this information from

Worms on the land, I’ll put the birds in the clouds and on
land. And for water I’ll have fish, and we’ll have a tree right
on the land and one more I’ll pick a crab in the water and
worms.
I chose those because like to stay in the ground and in the
cloud and I know crab are by the beach and fish in the water
and the worm help the environment and tree is where birds
live
I: do they need each other
S: the tree needs the water and clouds and sun keeps some of
the animals alive and the land needs the water. The birds
need the fish and worms for eating. The crab will eat the fish
like minnows and I know that worms need the land so that
can stay in the soil

Story: when I go to the ice cream story, every time I go
there’s some birds and when I took a little piece of my ice
cream and the birds are coming over and flying in the sky
because of the ice- cream.
I: do you want to give a name to this environment
S: I’ll just call it nature
Probably the trees because they’re all over the world

I went to a lot of camps that had natures, we did a lot of
nature walking, we caught frogs and I go camping two or 3
times every year.
I: what other animals did you see
S: I saw squirrels, bushes and seaweeds
I:besides nature walk, do you have a pet
S: I have a leopard kicker ( a kind of lizard and needs a lot of
sunlight so that it can live and eats cricket and sometimes
horn worms like a caterpillars) and a dog
I: do you feed the lizard
S: I keep her in my room in a special place and I gave it
some decorations and when it goes out of the house it’s like
a little garden.
I: do you have a garden
S: not anymore because all it has is weeds, the apple tree
died normally because no water but the other tree lived for
200 years

137

Table 36: Transcript for Picture without arrows for S23G2M
Look that picture, and tell me where you think you
can find such an environment in nature?

When you go camping, and when you’re on the
road

Have you visited such a place in nature? With
whom? What did you do there?

Yea but I haven’t seen any foxes or owls, I’ve seen
a baby fox in the road
I:when you go camping do you see those animals
S: I could see frogs, fishes, sometimes beavers, I’ve
seen a possum at the zoo
Frogs wants the fish, the bird probably wants the
fish and owls wants the fish, the possum needs
berries and flowers and I know the frog needs the
insects and the fox needs possums beavers and kind
of birds too because it’s a meat eater and the beaver
needs the water
Probably the bugs, because me and my dad have
the biggest collection of bugs we’ve ever had, we
put little pins in them and its cool. We put in
picture flame and there’s a glass and sometimes we
put bugs and pins. I have cool moths one I found on
the ground it was dead and one my dad got by the
gas station. when I dad went to Chicago, he caught
two pinching beetles.
I: how d you know the names
S: I have a book that tells us what their names are, I
got it for my birthday.
I: why do you do this activity
S: because I want to be physicist when I grow up
like my dad
The trees keep all the animals alive because they
need air. The possum needs flowers and berries
from plants. The sun is the most important part
Everything will die because the trees give air and
air will be gone because the trees make it

Do you think there are any relations among the
organisms above? Do they interact with each other?
How?

Pick one animal and tell me what you think it needs
in such an environment to survive?
What other things does the animal you picked (e.g.
frog, fish, or wolf) need to survive?
How does the animal you picked (e.g. frog or fish
or wolf) depend on other living things to survive?

Do you think plants are important in this
environment, why?
What would happen if all plants died?

Table 37: Transcript for Picture with Arrows for S23G2M
What does the picture show?
How would you explain the
relationships among owl, insect, frog
and plants? What do you think the
arrows mean?

The foxes eat the foxes and the birds needs the spiders and these
need the possums
If all of those died
S: there would be nothing left
I: why is that
S: they would die one by one because they need the others

138

Table 37 (cont’d)
Which organisms or parts of the
environment are the most important
in keeping this system working?

Do you think that this environment is
missing something to keep living or
is what is shown enough to keep it
living?

Which one of those organisms would
be the most in number?
What do you think may happen if all
insects disappeared?

The sun and the trees and the berries,
I:why the sun
S: the sun makes the food for the plants and if no sun we have no
plants and if we have not plants there is no air to breathe and
everything dies, also the berries are food for the possums so they
are important because many animals feed on them
I:anything else why sun and trees and berries are the most
important
I:any thing else
S: no
The sun makes some of the food in the leaves, like the water goes
in the leaves and the sun helps it and makes the food for the
plants, because the water goes into it and the sun comes and helps
I: why is that important
S: because if there are no plants we have no air and we die
I: how do you know all that
S: my dad, nature camp and teacher
The most would be the fish, because there’s a lot of fish, I know
because I go fishing a lot and a lot of people catch them
Insects, the plants will die because the bugs help the plants
I: how do they help them
S: some of the flowers have nectar and bees take the nectar so
some flowers will die
I:After that what will happen
S: the frogs will probably die and if frogs will die, the owl and
some birds will die because they don’t find anything to eat, and
plants and flowers are the same thing the possums will die
because berries will be gone and if the beavers didn’t have berries
or stuff, he will die and the fox could only get the fish and it
won’t be enough because there’s would only be fish so he would
die and the fish will be the only left
I: how do you know all that
S: my dad, nature camp and teacher
I: what do you learn in camp
S: we go and they teach us songs about nature songs and about
plants and animals, I remember one: “ this is your land, this is my
land”

139

Table 37 (cont’d)
What do you think will happen if all
black birds disappeared?

What do you think will happen if all
the foxes disappeared?

Bird: that helps the plant by pollinating them but because the
scarecrows fight them away, so if there are no birds there will be
less plants
I: anything else might happen
S: no
If all the foxes died it would be helpful and bad, if the foxes are
gone then some of the animals will be gone because they don’t
get enough meat.
I: what do you mean
S: I mean the animals that eat the fox will die
I: how come, the animals don’t eat the possum
S: if foxes died then some animals like possums need the fox to
eat it once it is dead
Fish: beaver and foxes died because they feed on fish and birds
die but beavers may still live because they can eat berries
Plants: all animals and we will die because we will have no air

What do you think will happen if all
the fish disappeared?

What do you think will happen if all
the grass, trees, and green plants
disappeared?

For the fox to survive and have
babies, what would it need?
For fish to survive and have babies,
what would it need?

It needs a lot of fish because the babies could only eat fish, they
need mostly fish and beavers so they the big ones are eat

If the fox died, what do you think
will happen to the fox after one
week? After two weeks? After one
month? After one year?

It will get rotten
I: how
S: it will be really old and super hard to eat
I: what will happen after one year
S: it will turn into soil, the bones kind of disappear and turn into
soil and the skin gets eaten by worms and it disappear
I: how will it disappear
S: I don’t know how it disappears but I know that bones disappear
in the soil, I really don’t know the reason I’m still trying to learn
that.

140

Table 37 (cont’d)
If grass died, what do you think will
happen to the grass after one week?
After two weeks? After one month?
After one year?

Plants It will turn rotten and will be orange and yellow and all
the animals will die because they need grass, if it doesn’t have the
tree attached to it so it gets rotten
I:how does it get rotten
S: I don’t know how but it does

Mouse: the same thing will happen to it like the fox

If the mouse died in the environment
above died, what would happen to it
after 10 years? And why?

Fish, will land on an island and I’ve seen that once
I: what if it doesn’t land anywhere
S: it will make the ocean stink and no one will want to go into it
I: will it stay there or disappear, how will it disappear
S: it will disappear maybe the sand will make it disappear

If the fish died, what would happen
to it after 10 years and why?

If someone sprayed a poison that
killed insects, would any other
creature in the above picture be
affected?

If you were to do something “bad” to
the environment, what would that be
and how would you do it?
If you were to do something positive
to the environment above, what
would that be and how would you do
it?

Name what is living in the picture
above, name what is not living? Is
there a relation between them?

Frog because it eats bugs and insects
I: what if only this bug died, if the frog
S: yes because of the poison they will die
I: any other creature affected
S: birds eat frog so if they eat it they will die and the bird and
frogs gets the poison and the fox gets affects and nothing else is
alive
Bad: kill all the trees, if trees died everything died except the
fishes so everything dies because they need air
I: do you think we have plants in the ocean
Yes
I: what will happen if plants in ocean die
S: all fish will die as well
Good if I find a baby fox I’ll tell my parents and my dad will help
it live
I pretty much don’t see anything
I: do you think the water is living
S: no
I: mountain
S: no and rocks are not living
I: any relation between water rocks and mountains
S: fish wants the water and the water needs the fish and the trees
need mountains
I: why do they need mountains
S: I’m not sure

141

Table 38: Transcript for Feedback loop system reasoning for S23G2M
Assume in the environment above, all
animals died and what was left was 200
foxes and 200 rabbits, how many rabbits and
will we have after one week? After one
month? After 6 months? After one year?
And why?

Assume that all animals died except the
mice? What would happen to those mice
after one week? After one month, after 6
months? And after one year?

Have you learned about this subject before?
Where?

Probably a 100 foxes and 5o possums, the possum will be
eaten by foxes and the foxes might because they won’t
have enough of meat so they will 100 left.
I: will they make more of themselves
S: yes
I: how many will be have after 100 year
S: about the same amount 200 boxes and 200 possums
because they will have babies, wait, they may stay the
same in the beginning because they make babies
Possums will the winners, they will be more and they
will keep making more babies
I: is this good or bad
S: B A D
I: why
S: there will only be possum walking all around because
there will be one kind of animal in the whole world
Any books or movies
S: I have a lot of books, I forgot their names, but I have
books that are signed, it was about the horned owl that
lived for 13 years then he died, he was like part of the
family because he watched the kids.
I: any movies
S: I watch videos for kids, I forgot the names. I have a
laptop too, I have 2 sister and no brothers, I’m the oldest,
my second sister is 4.5 and my other sister is one year
old. Sometimes they pick me up from child care and
sometimes from school. They bring me to school or early
child care. There’s another’s kid website but Evan knows
it we kind of share my email. Somehow we kind of share
the email, even we don’t live in the same house but we
share the email.

142

APPENDIX VI: INITIAL LEARNING PROGRESSION

Table 39: Preliminary Learning Progression Coding scheme
Effect of
population
changes

Identifying
crucial elements
of the system

Lower Anchor

Anthropomorphic
or aesthetic
reasons
e.g., “ if plants
died, the air will
not be good and
we will not be able
to eat vegetables”

Identify irrelevant
elements such as
top carnivore due
to size
e.g., “the wolf
because it can eat
them all

Middle level 2

Recognize the
effect on the direct
organism

Identify a mixture
of irrelevant and
relevant elements

Middle level 3

Recognize the
effect on more
than organism but
not on all related
organisms

Identify some of
the relevant
elements but not
the all of them

Upper Anchor

Recognize the
domino effect of
changing one
population on the
rest of the food
web

Identify the
producers and
sunlight as crucial
for a viable system

143

Constructing an
interconnected
food web

Recycling of
matter through
the example of
decomposition
Recognize pair
Recognize
relations that are
random events
dependent for
such as air or
anthropomorphic
temperature that
reasons
do not involve
matter recycling
e.g., “these birds
because they are
e.g., “when the
both birds because plant dies, it will
they eat seeds and disappear after
have fun together
some time
because of the
air.”
Recognize a web
Recognize that
like relation with
the soil’s
most organisms
condition of
but not all without dampness and
reference to abiotic heat can cause
relations
breakdown of
the dead and do
not involve
recycling
Recognize the
Recognize that
worms can
connection of
break down
various biotic
dead organisms
interactions
that can be
without any
recycled
reference to the
abiotic factors
Recognize various Recognize
Microscopic
connections
organisms
between various
change matter to
populations and
usable
relations between
components in
biotic and abiotic
the system
factors

APPENDIX VII: CONSISTENCY TABLE FOR ALL 44 STUDENTS
Checking for students consistency
There are 13 items are used to check for students’ consistency
Q1: Question that requires students to make up their environment choosing populations and
justifying their choice (Scenario II)
Q2: what is the most important element of the ecosystem (Scenario I)
Q3: What is missing in the ecosystem (Scenario I)
Q4: What would happen if all insects died?
Q5: What would happen if all black birds died?
Q6: What would happen if all foxes died?
Q7: what would happen if all fish died?
Q8: what would happen if all plants died?
Q9: if someone sprayed poison that killed insects, would any other creature be affected? Why or
why not?
Q10: What would happen to the foxes body with time when it dies ?
Q11: What would happen to the grass when it dies?
Q12: What would happen to the mouse with time when it dies?
Q13: What would happen to the fish with time when it dies?
Table 39 below shows the students most frequent level, and the deviation from the most
frequent level (baseline) calculated by subtracting the level form the baseline, and number of
questions with baseline frequency in the last column.
Table 40: Consistency Table
Student/
most
frequent
level
s1g4m
(2)
s2g4m
(2)
s3g4f (2)
s4g4f (2)
s5g4m
(1.5)
s6g4m(2)
s7g4f (4)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

# of
baseline

0

0

-2

1

0

-2

0

0

2

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

1

5

0

-1

-2

0

0

0

0

0

-1

-0.5

-0.5

0

-0.5

7

0
2
0.5
0
-1

1
1
0.5

0
-2
1.5
-2
0

0
0
1.5

0
0
0

0
0
1.5

1
0
0.5

1
0
1.5

2
2
0.5

0
-0.5
0

-0.5
-0.5
0

0
-0.5
0

-0.5
-0.5
0

7
5
5

1
0

0
0

1
0

1
-1

0
0

-1
0

0
-1

-0.5
-2.5

0
-1

-0.5
-2.5

5
6

1
-1

144

Table 40 (cont’d)
s8g4m (2)
s9g4f (3)
s10g4f
(1.5)
s11g3f
(1.5)
s12g3m
(2)
s13g3m
(1.5) 6
s14g3m
(2) 4
s15g3f
(1.5)
s16g3f
(3)
s17g3m
(2)
s18g3f
(2)
s19g3m
(1.5)
s20g3f
(3)
s21g2f
(1.5)
s22g2m
(1.5)
s23g2m
(3)
s24g2m
(2)
s25g2m
(1.5)
s26g2f
(1.5)
s27g2f
(1.5)
s28g2m
(1)
s29g2f
(1.5)
s30g2f
(1.5)
s31g2m
(0)
s32g2f
(2)

0
0
0.5

0
-1
0

0
0
1.5

0
0
0.5

0
0
1.5

0
0
1.5

0
1
0.5

2
1
0.5

0
-1.5
0

-0.5
-1.5
0

0
-1.5
0

-0.5
-1.5
0

9
5
5

1.5
0

0

0

0

0.5

0

0

0

7

1

1

0

0

1.5
0

0

0

-2
-1
0.5
1.5
-2

0.5
0

0.5

0

0

0

0

10

0.5

0

0.5

0

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

-1.5

6

0

-2

0

1

0

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

4

0.5

0.5

0

1.5

-1.5

0.5

0

0

0

5

0

-3

-1

0

0

0

1.5
-1

0

1

1.5
0

0.5
0

1.5
0

0

2

1.5
1

-1.5

-1.5

-3

-1.5

5

0.5
0

0

-2

1

-1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

6

0

1

0

1

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

0

6

1.5

0.5
1.5

0.5
4

0

1.5

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

6

-1

0

-3

0

0

0

0

0

-1.5

-1.5

-1.5

-1.5

6

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

5

0.5

0.5

1.5
1.5

1.5
0

1.5

2.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

6

1

0

0

0

-1

0

0

0

1

-1

-1.5

-1

-1

8

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

7

0.5
0.5

0.5

1.5
0

0

0

0

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

7

0

0.5
0

0.5

-1.5

0

0

0

0

-0.5

8

0.5

1.5

1.5

0

1.5

0

0.5

0

0

0

0

6

1

1

1.5
-1

1.5
0.5

2

0

0

2

1

0.5

0

0

0

0

6

1.5

0.5

0

1.5

1.5

-0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

5

0.5

0

0

1.5

0.5
0

0

1.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

8

1

2

0

2

0

1

2

1.5

1.5

1

0

0

0

5

0

0

-2

0

0

1

0

0

-1

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

6

0

145

Table 40 (cont’d)
s33g1f
(1.5)
s34g1f
(1.5) 5
s35g1f
(1.5) 9
s36g1m
(3)
s37g1f
(1.5)
s38g1m
(1.5)
s39g1f
(1.5)
s40g1f
(1.5)
s41g1f
(1.5)
s42g1m
(2)
s43g1f
(1.5)
s44g1m
(1.5)

0
0

1.5
0.5

0.5

0.5

1

0

0.5
0.5
2.5

0

0

1.5
1.5
1.5
0

0

0

0

0.5
1

0

1.5
0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1.5
0

0.5
1.5

0.5
0

0

0

0

-0.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

1.5

0.5

0.5

0.5
0.5

0

0.5

1.5

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

1.5
1.5
0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

6

1.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.5

0

0.5

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

1.5
0

-1.5

-1

-1

-1

7

1.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0.5
1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

6

0.5

0

0.5

0

0.5

-0.5

0

-0.5

0

7

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

6

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

6

146

REFERENCES

147

REFERENCES
Alexander, S. K. (1982). Food web analysis: An ecosystem approach. The American Biology
Teacher, 44, 186 – 190.
Anderson, A., Scheufele, D., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. (2012). The role of media and defense to
scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging
technology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 225-237.
Alonzo, A. (2010). Discourse as a lens for reframing considerations of learning progressions.
Paper presented at the International Conference of Learning Sciences (ICLS). Chicago,
USA.
Alonzo, A. (2012). Eliciting students’ responses relative to a learning progression. In A. C.
Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds). Learning progressions in science (p.241-254).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Alonzo, A., Benus, M., Bennett, W., & Pinney, B. (2009). A learning progression of elementary
school students’ understanding of plant nutrition. Paper presented at the European
Science Education Research Association (ESERA). Istanbul, Turkey.
Alonzo, A., & Steedle, J. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning
progression. Science Education, 93, 389-421.
American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), (1993). Benchmarks for scientific
literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barman, C., Griffiths, A., & Okebukola, P. (1995). High school students’ concepts regarding
food chains and food webs: A multinational study. International Journal of Science
Education, 17, 775-782.
Barton, A. C. & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46, 50-73.
Bertalanffy, V. L. (1975). General systems theory. New York, NY: Braziller.
Capra, F. (1997). The web of life. NY: Anchor Books, a division of Random House INC.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandler, M., & Boutilier, R. (1992). The development of dynamic system reasoning. Human
Development, 35, 121-137.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.

148

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey, NJ: Mahwah.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and
methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15-42.
Dagher, J., Hajjar, Z., Safi, S., & Sabeh, M. (1999). Life science. Beirut: NCERD Press.
Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in
the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education 10,
37-60.
Duncan, R., & Hemlo-Silver, C. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction
and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 606-609.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A
review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47 (2), 123-182.
Eilam, B. (2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model.
Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences 40 (2), p213239.
Fisch,S., Lesh, R., Motoki, B., Crespo, S., & Melfi, V. (2011). Cross platform learning:
Children’s learning from multiple media. IDC, 46-51.
Friedman, A. (Eds.). (March 12, 2008). Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science
projects [Online]. Available at: http://insci.org/resources/Eval_Framework.pdf.
Gallegos, L., Jerezano, M., & Flores, F. (1994). Preconceptions and relations used by children
in the construction of food chains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 259-272.
Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public conception. Issues in Science
and Technology, 3 (3), 109-115.
Gotwals, A. (2012). Learning progressions for multiple purposes. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W.
Gotwals (Eds). Learning progressions in science (p.462-472). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gotwals, A., & Alonzo, A. (2012). Leaping into learning progression in science. In A. C. Alonzo
& A. W. Gotwals (Eds). Learning progressions in science (p.3-12). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gotwals, A., & Songer, N. (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using and assessment
framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94, 259-281.

149

Green, D. (1997). Explaining and envisioning and ecological phenomena. British Journal of
Psychology, 88, 199-217.
Griffiths, A., & Grant, B. (1985). High school students’ understanding of food webs:
Identification of a learning hierarchy and related misconceptions. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 22, 421-436.
Grotzer, T., & Bell, B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of the
ecosystems impact students’ understanding. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 16-29.
Gunckel, K., Mohan, L., Covitt, B, & Anderson, C. (2012). Addressing challenges in developing
learning progressions for environmental science literacy. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W.
Gotwals (Eds). Learning progressions in science (p.39-76). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment.
Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) State
Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) of the Council of Chief
StateSchool Officers (CCSSO). Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Learning_Progressions_Supporting_2008.pdf
Hill, D., & Redden, M. (1985). An investigation of the system concept. School Science and
Mathematics, 85, 233-239.
Hogan, K. (2000). Students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35
(1), 22-28.
Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutrient cycling in
ecosystems: Bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33, 941-970.
Hogan, K., & Weathers, K. (2003). Psychological and ecological perspectives on the
development f systems thinking. In A. Berkowitz, K. Hollweg, & C. Nilon (Eds).
Understanding urban ecosystems (pp. 233-260). New York: Springer.
Jin, H. (2010). Developing a learning progression for energy and causal reasoning in socioecological systems. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation. Michigan State University, MI, USA.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. (2012). Developing assessments for a learning progression on carbon
transforming processes in socio-ecological systems. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals
(Eds). Learning progressions in science (p. 151-181). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.
Lauro, B. (2012). The endangered species and biodiversity a classroom project and theme. The
American Biology Teacher, 74 (2), 114.
150

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology :
Theoretical background, design and methodology. International Journal of Science
Education, 17, 721-732.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996 a). Children’s ideas about ecology
2: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about cycling of matter. International Journal of
Science Education, 17, 19-34.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., Wood-Robinson, C. (1996 b). Children’s ideas about ecology 2:
Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about interdependency of organisms. International
Journal of Science Education, 17, 129-141.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2009). Images of learning, images of progress. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 46 (6), 731-735.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012 a). Supporting inquiry about the foundations of evolutionary
thinking in the elementary grades. In S. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from
child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences. (pp.
171-206). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012 b). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in
modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96, 701-724.
Lennon, K., DeBoer, G. (2008). Probing middle school students’ understanding of ideas about
interdependence in living systems through content aligned assessment. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching
(NARST), Baltimore, MD.
McNeal, R. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science
achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78 (1), 117-144.
Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction.
Review of Educational Research, 65 (2), 93-127.
Metz, K. (2009). Rethinking what is “developmentally appropriate” from a learning progression
perspective. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3(1), 5-22.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for
carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46,
675-698.
Mohan, L., & Plummer, J. (2012). Exploring challenges to defining learning progressions. . In A.
C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds). Learning progressions in science (p. 139-147).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

151

Moll, C., Neff, D, & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a qualitative
approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory and Practice, 31, 2, Qualitative issues in
Educational Research. P. 132-141.
National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and Teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, CrossCutting Concepts, and core Ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Noor, K. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied
Sciences, 5 (11), 1602-1604.
Odum, E. (1977). The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline. Science, 195 (4284),
1289-1293.
Odum, E. (1992). Great ideas in ecology for the 1990’s. BioScience, 42 (7), 542-545.
Ostefled, R., Jones, C., & Wolff, J. (1996). Of mice and mast: Ecological connections in eastern
deciduous forests. BioScience, 46, 323-330.
Piaget, J. (1966). The Child’s Conception of Physical Causality. New Jersey: Little Fields,
Adams & Co.
Plate, R. (2010). Assessing individual’s understanding of non-linear causal structures in complex
systems. System Dynamics Review, 26, 19-33.
Postman, N. (1982). The disappearance of childhood. New York: Delacorte.
Quellmalz, E., & Pellegrino, J. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323 (2), 75-79.
Raia, F. (2005). Students’ understanding of complex dynamic system. Journal of Geosciences
Education, 53, 297-308.
Raia, F. (2008). Causality in complex dynamic systems: A challenge in earth systems science
education. Journal of Geosciences Education, 56 (1), 81-94.
Reiner, M. (2001). Conceptual classroom environment: A system view of learning. International
Journal of Science Education, 23, 551-568.
Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking: An elementary view.
Management Science, 42, 836-843.
Robertson, P., Scott, C., Foster, D., Brokaw, N., Ducklow, H., Gragson, T., Gries, C., Hamilton,
S., McGuire, D., Moore, J., Stanley, E., Waide, R., & Williams, M. (2012). Long term
ecological research in a human dominated world. BioScience, 62, 342-353.
152

Roncone, K. (2002). Kids stuff: Science that entertains and informs. Journal of Minerals, Metals
and Materials Society, 54 (1), p. 11-15.
Schwarz, C., Reiser, B, Davis, B., Kenyon, L, Acher, A., Fortus, D., Schwartz, Y., Hug, B., &
Krajcik, J. (2009). Designing a learning progression of scientific modeling: Making
scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 46, 632-654.
Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s
learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and
the atomic molecular theory. Measurement, 14 (1&2), 1-98.
Songer, N., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur?
Empirically driven development of a learning progressing focused on complex reasoning
and biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, 610-631.
Southerland, S., Smith, M., & Cummins, C. (2000). “What do you mean by that?” Using
structured interviews to assess science understanding. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J.
Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 72-92). London: Academic Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Strieb, L. Y. (2010) Inviting families into the classroom: Learning from a life in teaching. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Strike, K., Posner, G., (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Richard Duschl and
Richard Hamilton (Eds). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational
theory and practice (pp. 147-176). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Stromen, E. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! Children’s’ conceptions of forests and
their inhabitants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 683-698.
Sweeny, L., & Sterman, J. (2007). Thinking about systems: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions
of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23, 285-312.
Wang, J., & Wildman, L. (1995). An empirical examination of the effects of family commitment
in education on student achievement in seventh grade science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32 (8), 833-837.
United Nation Environmental Program (UNEP, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/2010/.
Webb, P., & Blott, G. (1990). Food chain to food web: A natural progression? Journal of
Biological Education, 24 (3), 187-197.
White, P. (1997). Naïve ecology: Causal judgment about a simple ecosystem. British Journal of
Psychology, 88, 219-233.
153

White, P. (2000). Naïve Analysis of food web dynamics: A study of causal judgments about
complex physical systems. Cognitive Science 24 (4), 605-650.
Wilson, E. O. (1992). The diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. (2011). Applications of case study research. CA: SAGE publications.
Zohar, A., & Ginossar, S. (1998). Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism
in biology education-Heretical suggestions. Science Education 82, 679-697.

154