An Evolutionary Approach to Harnessing Complex Systems Thinking in the Science and Technology Classroom

Educational efforts to incorporate ethical decision‐making in science classrooms about current science and technology issues have met with great challenges. Some research suggests that the inherent complexity in both the subject matter content and the structure and dynamics of classrooms contribute to this challenge. This study seeks to investigate the viability of an educational heuristic based on a complex s ystems evolutionary approach to both harness complexity inherent in the learning system of the classroom and to improve student knowledge of a complex scientific issue. The evolutionary mechanisms of variation, interaction, and selection were used to construct a 10‐day curriculum and instruction unit on the topic of genetic engineering. Eleven Grade 9 students participated in the study. The data analysis was completed using three data sources: daily database discussions and ratings and rationales provided over four time‐points, probing student opinions and understanding of genetic engineering research. A repeated‐measures analysis of variance conducted on 43 student rationales indicated a continuing trend of increasing understanding of complex systems concepts over time. There is also evidence to show that students as a whole group operated as a complex system in their patterns of decision‐making. A number of themes identified in student database discussions reveal processes students themselves believed influenced change at the social and conceptual level, including the evolutionary mechanisms upon which the program was designed.

[1]  C. Skinner,et al.  Primary Trait Analysis: Anchoring Assessment in the Classroom , 2000 .

[2]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[3]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  School science and its problems with scientific literacy , 1997 .

[4]  Lucia Mason,et al.  Cognitive and metacognitive aspects in conceptual change by analogy , 1994 .

[5]  P. Butler,et al.  Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education , 1999 .

[6]  Michael Booth.  The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. , 2001 .

[7]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Things that Blink: Computationally Augmented Name Tags , 1996, IBM Syst. J..

[8]  Sara Gavrell Ortiz.  Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering , 2004 .

[9]  M. Resnick,et al.  Diving into Complexity: Developing Probabilistic Decentralized Thinking through Role-Playing Activities. , 1998 .

[10]  J. Loftis,et al.  Germ-Line Enhancement of Humans and Nonhumans , 2005, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[11]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[12]  Eva Krugly-Smolska,et al.  Scientific culture, multiculturalism and the science classroom , 1996, Science & Education.

[13]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SCIENCE READING AND SCIENCE TEXT: AN INTERVIEW STUDY , 1995 .

[14]  Marc D. Lewis.  Personality self-organization: Cascading constraints on cognition–emotion interaction. , 1997 .

[15]  Vanessa Colella,et al.  Participatory Simulations: Building Collaborative Understanding Through Immersive Dynamic Modeling , 2000 .

[16]  D. Potari,et al.  Students' Argumentation in Decision-Making on a Socio-Scientific Issue: Implications for Teaching. , 1999 .

[17]  R. Axelrod,et al.  Harnessing Complexity , 2022, Sync or Swarm, Revised Edition.

[18]  J. Flavell.  Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[19]  David E. Penner,et al.  Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena , 2000 .

[20]  Christopher Davis.  The Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering , 1996 .

[21]  M. Reiss.  Teaching ethics in science , 1999 .

[22]  F. Capra.  The Web of Life , 1996 .

[23]  V. Battistich,et al.  Enhancing students’s social and ethical development in schools , 1998 .

[24]  D. Lewkowicz,et al.  A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. , 2007, Journal of cognitive neuroscience.

[25]  Susan A. Yoon,et al.  Teaching Complex Dynamic Systems to Young Students with StarLogo , 2005 .

[26]  Susan A. Yoon,et al.  Developing games and simulations for today and tomorrow’s tech savvy youth , 2005 .

[27]  A. Zohar.  Transfer and Retention of Reasoning Strategies Taught in Biological Contexts. , 1996 .

[28]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Preparing Students for Competent Scientific Practice: Implications of Recent Research in Science and Technology Studies , 1999 .

[29]  Brian C. Nelson,et al.  A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations , 2006 .

[30]  J. Lochhead.  Thinkback: A User's Guide to Minding the Mind , 2000 .

[31]  T. Kuhn.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[32]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom , 1996 .

[33]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[34]  Gregory Schraw.  Promoting general metacognitive awareness , 1998 .

[35]  David N. Perkins,et al.  Dimensions of Causal Understanding: the Role of Complex Causal Models in Students' Understanding of Science , 2005 .

[36]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Europe ambivalent on biotechnology , 1997, Nature.

[37]  Mary Lundeberg,et al.  Case It or Else! Fostering Ethical Awareness about Human Genetics. , 2002 .

[38]  J. Osborne,et al.  Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study , 2001 .

[39]  T. Hoban,et al.  Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety , 1994 .

[40]  L. Chan.  Motivational Orientations and Metacognitive Abilities of Intellectually Gifted Students , 1996 .

[41]  K. Popper.  Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography , 1976 .

[42]  IF You Discover,et al.  THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE. , 1923, Science.

[43]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities , 1994 .

[44]  Jane Gilbert,et al.  The construction and reconstruction of the concept of the reflective practitioner in the discourses of teacher professional development , 1994 .

[45]  Uri Wilensky,et al.  Learning through participatory simulations: network-based design for systems learning in classrooms , 1999, CSCL.

[46]  Téléphone,et al.  THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION , 2007 .

[47]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Seeking Directions for Change: the personalisation and politicisation of science education , 1994 .

[48]  I. Robottom,et al.  Science and ethics : Some issues for education , 2001 .

[49]  M. Resnick,et al.  Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World , 1999 .

[50]  U. Wilensky,et al.  Complex Systems in Education: Scientific and Educational Importance and Implications for the Learning Sciences , 2006 .

[51]  J. Sutherland.  The Quark and the Jaguar , 1994 .

[52]  Paul Dehart Hurd,et al.  Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world , 1998 .

[53]  F. Varela.  Ethical Know-How: Action, Wisdom, and Cognition , 1999 .

[54]  David M. Raup,et al.  How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality , 1997 .

[55]  Earl Woodruff,et al.  Concept development for kindergarten children through a health simulation , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[56]  MICHAEL J. JACOBSON,et al.  Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices , 2001, Complex..

[57]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  ScienceWare's Model-It: Technology to Support Authentic Science Inquiry , 1997 .

[58]  Carl Bereiter,et al.  Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age , 2002 .

[59]  Li Sha,et al.  An application of social network analysis to knowledge building , 2003 .

[60]  U. Wilensky,et al.  Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories—An Embodied Modeling Approach , 2006 .

[61]  Per Bak,et al.  How Nature Works , 1996 .

[62]  Earl Woodruff,et al.  The impact of distributed and ubiquitous computational devices on the collaborative learning environment , 2002, CSCL.

[63]  Kathleen Hogan,et al.  Relating Students' Personal Frameworks for Science Learning to Their Cognition in Collaborative Contexts. , 1999 .

[64]  J Swanson,et al.  Business Dynamics—Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[65]  P. Senge.  Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents and Everyone Who Cares About Education , 2000 .

[66]  D. Beyleveld,et al.  Teenagers and Biotechnology: A Survey of Understanding and Opinion in Britain , 1998 .

[67]  Ilya Prigogine,et al.  Order out of chaos , 1984 .

[68]  Paul Black,et al.  Changing the Subject: Innovations in Science, Maths and Technology Education , 1996 .

[69]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.