Pedagogical framework for environmental science

Abstract

Through innovative use of technology, we propose a pedagogical framework to improve the achievement of the threshold learning outcomes defined for Australian curriculum in environmental science. The proposed framework is grounded in the theory of disciplinary intuitions. It aims to improve understanding of the local environment through assessment of microclimates, thereby developing increased understanding of complex environmental issues, and promote systemic change in environmental science education by engaging students in novel and authentic tasks. The proposed framework seeks to make environmental factors immediately relevant to students through study of their local environment. Students can develop an understanding of complex environmental issues through learning activities which interrogate the local environment datasets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

  2. diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  3. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Putall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  4. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 187–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gautier, C., Deutsch, K., & Rebich, S. (2006). Misconceptions about the greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 386–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Husserl, E. (1936). The crisis of the European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jones, S. M., Yates, B. F., & Kelder, J.-A. (2011). Learning and teaching academic standards project: Science learning and teaching academic standards statement. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kirkup, L., & Johnson, L. (2013). Good practice guide (science) threshold learning outcome 3: Inquiry and problem-solving. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lim, K. Y. T. (Ed.). (2015). disciplinary intuitions and the design of learning environments. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Matthews, K. E., & Hodgson, Y. (2012). The science students skills inventory: Capturing graduate perceptions of their learning outcomes. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 20(1), 24–43.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McBain, B., Phelan, L., Ferguson, A., Brown, P., Brown, V., Hay, I., Horsfield, R., Taplin, R. (2015). Learning and teaching academic standards (LTAS): Environment and sustainability. Final Report. Office for Learning and Teaching, Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274006942_Learning_and_Teaching_Academic_Standards_Statement_for_Environment_and_Sustainability (15 May 2019).

  14. Mohapatra, S. (2015). Business school education and technology-a case study. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 335–346.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Piaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking, knowledge and development (pp. 17–42). Springer USA.

  17. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson, Z. (2011). Teaching climate change in higher education: barriers and opportunities. Pedagogy of Climate Change, Haslett, S., France, D. and Gedye, S. (Eds.), 36–50.

  19. Sarkar, S., Mohapatra, S., & Sundarakrishnan, J. (2017). Assessing impact of technology based digital equalizer programme on improving student learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, J. P., III, diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  27. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atul Sajjanhar.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sajjanhar, A., Lim, K.Y.T. & Ren, Y. Pedagogical framework for environmental science. Educ Inf Technol 25, 3631–3641 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10016-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Constructivist
  • Disciplinary intuitions
  • Threshold learning outcomes
  • Academic standards
  • Information and communication technology (ICT)