Abstract
This article reports on the theoretical output of a design research study, which concerns the design of a learning environment (LE) for helping students challenge the ‘balance of nature’-idea and reach an up-to-date understanding about ecosystems’ contingency. Our focus is set on whether it is feasible to articulate an empirically tested theory of teaching/learning about contingency in nature while designing our LE. The study included an exploratory phase (EP) and three research cycles (RC1–3). The participants were first year educational sciences students who collaboratively explored computer models that simulated ecosystems’ response to changes, in order to understand the underlying contingency. In the EP, we defined learning objectives/design criteria that informed the LE’s first version. This was driven by the global/overall question of how ecosystems may function, which was explored through inter-connected local/partial questions with the aid of scaffold questions embedded in worksheets linked to the computer models. Drawing upon the RC1 results, we introduced two-version models for each change that the peer groups had to explore and assigned the first version to half and the second to the other half. These changes made it through RC2-RC3 and account for key features of the study’s theoretical output, the ‘Bifurcated Domino Path Approach’. The RC3 results show that it works effectively, and thus, we suggest that the design of LEs addressing contingency in ecosystem’s response can integrate bifurcated domino paths with several (a) forks, where some peer groups explore one version of the target phenomenon and others an alternative one and (b) meeting points, where they all share their different, contingency-indicating conclusions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akker, J. V. D., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational Design Research. Oxon, England: Routledge.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2014). Towards a learning environment for challenging the idea of the balanced nature: Insights from the first cycle of research. In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning. Part 3 (pp. 44–54). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2016). Can the idea of “balance of nature” be effectively challenged within a model-based learning environment? Insights from the second cycle of developmental research. In T. Tal & A. Yarden (Eds.), The Future of Biology Education Research (pp. 7–20). Haifa: ERIDOB.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2017a). Toward an “anti-balance of nature” learning environment for non-biology major students: Learning objectives and design criteria. Natural Sciences Education, 46(1).
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2017b). Using ecology to enhance everyday reasoning: The case of interdependent and reciprocal causality. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 11(1), 93–104.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2017c). Using ecosystem simulation models to teach about the ‘resilient nature.’. In A. Lionarakis, S. Ioakimidou, M. Niari, E. Manousou, T. Hartofylaka, S. Papadimitriou, & A. Apostolidou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference in Open & Distance Learning: The Learning Design, Volume 6, Part B (pp. 224–231). Athens: Hellenic Open University and Hellenic Network of Open and Distance Education.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2018). Can the idea of the ‘balanced nature’ be challenged? Students’ reasoning about disturbed and protected ecosystems after a teaching intervention and one year later. In N. Gericke & M. Grace (Eds.), Challenges in Biology Education Research (pp. 20–36). Karlstad: ERIDOB.
Boersma, K., & Waarlo, A. J. (2009). On the theoretical input and output of ‘design research’ in biology education. In I. M. Hammann, A. J. Waarlo, & K. Boersma (Eds.), The Nature of Research in Biological Education: Old and New Perspectives on Theoretical and Methodological Issues (pp. 463–479). Ultrecht: CD-ß Press.
Clements, F. E. (1916). Plant succession: An analysis of the development of vegetation. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Cooper, G. (2001). Must there be a balance of nature? Biology and Philosophy, 16(4), 481–506.
Cuddington, K. (2001). The “balance of nature” metaphor and equilibrium in population ecology. Biology and Philosophy, 16(4), 463–479.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Egerton, F. N. (1973). Changing concepts of the balance of nature. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 48(2), 322–350.
Eilam, B. (2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model. Instructional Science, 40(2), 213–239.
Engeström, Y. (1981). The Laws of nature and the origin of life in pupils’ consciousness: A study of contradictory modes of thought. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 25(2), 39–61.
Ergazaki, M., & Ampatzidis, G. (2012). Students’ reasoning about the future of disturbed or protected ecosystems & the idea of the ‘balance of nature. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 511–530.
Gibbs, G. R. (2005). Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Gleason, H. A. (1926). The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 53(1), 7–26.
Gould, S. J. (2011). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2010). Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hobbs, R. J., & Morton, S. R. (1999). Moving from descriptive to predictive ecology. Agroforestry Systems, 45(1–3), 43–55.
Hokayem, H., & Gotwals, A. W. (2016). Early elementary students’ understanding of complex ecosystems: A learning progression approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1524–1545.
Hokayem, H., Ma, J., & Jin, H. (2015). A learning progression for feedback loop reasoning at lower elementary level. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 246–260.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.
Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. (2011). Towards a critical re-appraisal of ecology education: Scheduling an educational intervention to revisit the ‘balance of nature’ metaphor. Science & Education, 20(10), 1039–1053.
Jansen, A. J. (1972). An analysis of “balance in nature” as an ecological concept. Acta Biotheoretica, 21(1–2), 86–114.
Jelinski, D. E. (2005). There is no mother nature-there is no balance of nature: Culture, ecology and conservation. Human Ecology, 33(2), 276–285.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
Jordan, R. C., Brooks, W. R., Hmelo-Silver, C., Eberbach, C., & Sinha, S. (2014). Balancing broad ideas with context: An evaluation of student accuracy in describing ecosystem processes after a system-level intervention. Journal of Biological Education, 48(2), 57–62.
Kingsland, S. E. (1985). Modeling Nature. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Klaassen, C. W. J. M. (1995). A problem-posing approach to teaching the topic of radioactivity. Ultrecht: CD-ß Press.
Knippels, M. C. P. J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education-the yo-yo learning and teaching strategy. Ultrecht: CD-ß Press.
Kricher, J. (2009). The balance of nature: Ecology’s enduring myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ladle, R. J., & Gillson, L. (2009). The (im)balance of nature: A public perception time-lag? Public Understanding of Science, 18(2), 229–242.
Lijnse, P., & Klaassen, K. (2004). Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching–learning sequences? International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 537–554.
McIntosh, R. P. (1985). The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pimm, S. L. (1991). The balance of nature: Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sander, E., Jelemenska, P., & Kattmann, U. (2006). Towards a better understanding of ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 119–123.
Scheffer, M. (2009). Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schmitz, O. (2010). Resolving ecosystem complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Wallington, T. J., Hobbs, R. J., & Moore, S. A. (2005). Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: A review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society, 10(1).
Westra, R. (2008). Learning and teaching ecosystem behaviour in secondary education. Castricum: Faculteit Betawetenschappen.
Wilensky, U. (1999). Netlogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.
Zimmerman, C., & Cuddington, K. (2007). Ambiguous, circular and polysemous: Students’ definitions of the “balance of nature” metaphor. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 393–406.
Funding
This study was funded by the Research Committee of the University of Patras via Constantin Carathéodory 2010 project; it was also partly funded by the A.G. Leventis Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendix: The pre-post questionnaire
Appendix: The pre-post questionnaire
1.1 Item 1: Protected Ecosystem
-
Pre-test: Consider a certain forest that hosts populations of plants, animals and decomposers. This forest is a national park – namely a totally protected area where any human activity is forbidden. The size of the populations is regularly monitored by the scientists of the park who study their course in time. In the absence of natural disturbances, how do you think this forest will look some years later compared to how it initially looked according to the given description?
-
Post-test: Consider an aquatic park that hosts populations of plants, animals and decomposers. This aquatic park is a totally protected area where any human activity is forbidden. The size of the populations is regularly monitored by the scientists of the park who study their course in time. In the absence of natural disturbances, how do you think this aquatic park will look some years later compared to how it initially did according to the given description?
1.2 Item 3: Disturbed Ecosystem / Biotic Change
-
Pre-test: Consider a certain lake that hosts plant populations of phytoplankton (microscopic plants of various species) and water plants, animal populations of zooplankton (microscopic animals of various species), fish, sea birds and decomposers. The city council of a nearby city decides to add in this lake a new fish population (cyprinids). The introduction of this new fish population changes the situation within the lake: some populations decrease and some others increase in size. Sometime later, the city council decides to remove all the cyprinids from the lake and as a consequence there is no population of cyprinids left there. How do you think this lake will look some years later compared to how it initially looked (before the introduction of the cyprinids) according to the given description?
-
Post-test: Consider a certain forest that hosts populations of plants, animals and decomposers. The city council of a nearby city decides to add in this forest a new animal population (mongooses). The introduction of this new animal population changes the situation within the forest: some populations decrease and some others increase in size. Sometime later, the city council decides to remove all the mongooses from the forest and as a consequence there is no population of mongooses left there. How do you think this forest will look some years later compared to how it initially did (before the introduction of the mongooses) according to the given description?
1.3 Item 4: Disturbed Ecosystem/Abiotic Change
-
Pre-test: Consider a certain lake that hosts plant populations of phytoplankton (microscopic plants of various species) and water plants, animal populations of zooplankton (microscopic animals of various species), fish, sea birds and decomposers. The city council of a nearby city decides to throw treated wastewater in the lake for a certain period of time which increases the water salinity and, as a result, some populations decrease, some others increase in size and one fish population disappears. Sometime later, the salinity of the water restores its initial level thanks to the efforts of a group of scientists and the disappeared fish population is reintroduced. How do you think this lake will look some years later compared to how it initially did (before the salinity increase) according to the given description?
-
Post-test: Consider a certain lake that hosts plant populations of phytoplankton (microscopic plants of various species) and water plants, animal populations of zooplankton (microscopic animals of various species), fish and sea birds and decomposers. The city council of a nearby city decides to throw nutrients in the lake for a certain period of time and, as a result, some populations decrease, some others increase in size and one fish population disappears. Sometime later, the number of nutrients in the lake restores its initial level thanks to the efforts of a group of scientists and the disappeared fish population is reintroduced. How do you think this lake will look some years later compared to how it initially did (before the nutrients increase) according to the given description?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ampatzidis, G., Ergazaki, M. Challenging Students’ Belief in the ‘Balance of Nature’ Idea. Sci & Educ 27, 895–919 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0017-5
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0017-5
