Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining Educational Climate Change Technology: How Group Inquiry Work with Realistic Scientific Technology Alters Classroom Learning

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study with 79 students in Montreal, Quebec, compared the educational use of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) global climate model (GCM) to climate education technologies developed for classroom use that included simpler interfaces and processes. The goal was to show how differing climate education technologies succeed and fail at getting students to evolve in their understanding of anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC). Many available climate education technologies aim to convey key AGCC concepts or Earth systems processes; the educational GCM used here aims to teach students the methods and processes of global climate modeling. We hypothesized that challenges to learning about AGCC make authentic technology-enabled inquiry important in developing accurate understandings of not just the issue but how scientists research it. The goal was to determine if student learning trajectories differed between the comparison and treatment groups based on whether each climate education technology allowed authentic scientific research. We trace learning trajectories using pre/post exams, practice quizzes, and written student reflections. To examine the reasons for differing learning trajectories, we discuss student pre/post questionnaires, student exit interviews, and 535 min of recorded classroom video. Students who worked with a GCM demonstrated learning trajectories with larger gains, higher levels of engagement, and a better idea of how climate scientists conduct research. Students who worked with simpler climate education technologies scored lower in the course because of lower levels of engagement with inquiry processes that were perceived to not actually resemble the work of climate scientists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Whereas many sources refer to global climate models more simple as “climate models,” global climate models are a specific type of scientific instrument different from many climate education technologies labeled as climate models. Often also referred to as general circulation models, global climate models are numerical models that simulate the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean on a gridded Earth system by incorporating: (1) fundamental physical principles such as the conservation of energy, (2) discrete theoretical physics such as the Navier-Stokes equation of fluid motion, and (3) empirical physics formulas such as evaporation resulting from wind speed and humidity. For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the individual scenarios or runs of a global climate model as a simulation in this manuscript.

References

  • Abbasi, D. (2006). Americans and climate change––closing the gap between science and action: A synthesis of insights and recommendations from the 2005 Yale conference. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learn Instr, 14, 241–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). The liberal art of science. Science, 248(4959), 1137–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, challenges. Int J Sci Educ, 32(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J. (1994). From mental models to modeling. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modeling in the curriculum (pp. 27–32). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, D., Sieber, R., Seiler, G., & Chandler, M. (2016). The teaching of anthropogenic climate change and earth science via technology-enabled inquiry education. J Geosci Educ, 64(3), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., & Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging students in modeling as an epistemic practice of science: An introduction to the special issue of the journal of science education and technology. J Sci Educ Technol, 24(2–3), 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, C. C., & Gougis, R. D. (2016). Simulation modeling of lakes in undergraduate and graduate classrooms increases comprehension of climate change concepts and experience with computational tools. J Sci Educ Technol, 26(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, L. H., Alston, E. J., Phelps, C. S., Moore, S. W., Diones, D. D., Oots, P. C., Fisher, J. D., & Mims III, F. M. (2008). The My NASA data project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 89(4), 437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, M. A., Richards, S. J. & Shopsin, M. J. (2005). EdGCM: Enhancing climate science education through climate modeling research projects. Paper presented at The 85th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society: 14th Symposium on Education, San Diego.

  • Chandler, M. A., Sohl, L. E., Zhou, J., & Sieber, R. (2011). EdGCM: Research tools for training the climate change generation. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco.

  • Clark, J. J. (2015). “Hands-on” remote sensing of physical models in exploration of surficial processes. In K. Crosby, C. Thompson. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Wisconsin Space Conference: Innovations in Flight, Oshkosh: WI (pp. 1-9). Kenosha: Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium.

  • Cox, H., Kelly, K., & Yetter, L. (2014). Using remote sensing geospatial technology for climate change education. J Geosci Educ, 62(4), 609–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wiston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommenget, D. (2015). The Monash Simple Climate Model: An interactive climate model for teaching. Paper presented at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly Conference, Vienna.

  • Feurtzeig, W., & Roberts, N. (1999). Modeling and simulations in science and mathematics education. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraedrich, K., Jansen, H., Kirk, E., Luksch, U., & Lunkeit, F. (2005). The planet simulator: Towards a user-friendly model. Meteorol Z, 14(3), 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautier, C., & Solomon, R. (2005). A preliminary study of students’ asking quantitative scientific questions for inquiry-based climate model experiments. J Geosci Educ, 53(4), 432–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Imhof, B., Kuhl, T., Pfeiffer, V., Scheiter, K., & Gemballa, S. (2010). Using static and dynamic visualizations to support the comprehension of complex dynamic phenomena in the natural sciences. In L. Verschaffel, E. de Corte, T. de Jong, & J. Elen (Eds.), Use of external representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement (pp. 153–168). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • GoNorth! (2006). GoNorth!: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) http://www.polarhusky.com/2006/home2006.asp. Accessed 9 Dec 2016.

  • Hansen, J., Russell, G., Rind, D., Stone, P., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Ruedy, R., & Travis, L. (1983). Efficient three-dimensional global models for climate studies: Models I and II. Mon Weather Rev, 111(4), 609–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, L. M. (2014). Incorporating real science into the classroom: Aerosols and climate change (Masters Thesis). Houghton, MI: Michigan Technological University.

  • Horwitz, P., & White, B. Y. (1988). Computer microworlds and conceptual change: A new approach to science education. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 69–80). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubble, D. (2009). Improving student participation in e-learning activities. Paper presented at Fourth international Blended Learning Conference, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.

  • Johnson, R. M., Henderson, S., Gardiner, L., Russell, R., Ward, D., Foster, S., Meymaris, K., Hatheway, B., Carbone, L., & Eastburn, T. (2008). Lessons learned through our climate change professional development program for middle and high school teachers. Phys Geogr, 29(6), 500–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(7279), 296–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang, 2(10), 732–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, A. (1994). Understanding global change: A cognitive perspective on communicating through stories. Clim Chang, 27(4), 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, R. A. (2005). How hot will the greenhouse world be? Science, 309(5731), 100–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahti, D. (2013). Does attainment of Piaget’s formal operational level of cognitive development predict student understanding of scientific models (Doctoral Thesis). Missoula: University of Montana.

  • Ledley, T. S., Dahlman, L., McAuliffe, C., Haddad, N., Taber, M. R., Domenico, B., Lynds, S., & Grogan, M. (2011). Making Earth science data accessible and usable in education. Science, 333(6051), 1838–1839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N., & Marlon, J. R. (2010). Americans’ knowledge of climate change. New Haven: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löhner, S., Van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Comput Hum Behav, 21(3), 441–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lueddecke, S. B., Pinter, N., & McManus, S. A. (2001). Greenhouse effect in the classroom: A project and laboratory-based curriculum. J Geosci Educ, 49(3), 274–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2009). Global warming’s six americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. New Haven: Yale Project on Climate Change and George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q, 52(2), 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeal, K. S., Libarkin, J. C., Ledley, T. S., Bardar, E., Haddad, N., Ellins, K., & Dutta, S. (2014). The role of research in online curriculum development: The case of EarthLabs climate change and Earth system modules. J Geosci Educ, 62(4), 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1942). Note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Policy Sociology, 1, 115.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav, 32(2), 303–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. Int J Sci Educ, 32(4), 541–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S. (2011). Characteristics of abductive inquiry in earth science: An undergraduate case study. Sci Educ, 95(3), 409–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2007). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In J. F. C. DiMento & P. Doughman (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (pp. 65–99). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, A., & Lee, H. S. (2015). Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic computational climate models. J Sci Educ Technol, 24(2–3), 378–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamics models. J Sci Educ Technol, 13(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandya, R., Charlevoix, D., Cordero, E., Smith, D., & Yald, S. (2012). Trends in the AMS education symposium and highlights from 2012. Bulletin of the American Meteorlogical Society, 93(12), 1917–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramamurthy, K. N., Hinnov, L. A., & Spanias, A. S. (2014). Teaching Earth signals analysis using the Java-DSP Earth Systems edition: Modern and past climate change. J Geosci Educ, 62(4), 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riebeek, H., Chambers, L.H., Yuen, K., & Herring, D. (2009). Bringing terra science to the people: 10 years of education and public outreach. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco.

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cogn Instr, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach, 46(6), 632–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, A. L. (2008). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res, 29(7), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. J., Slater, T. F., & Olsen, J. K. (2009). Survey of K-12 science teachers’ educational product needs from planetary scientists. Astron Educ Rev, 8(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohl, L. E. (2012). Enhancing Earth system science education through paleoclimate modeling with EdGCM. Paper presented at the 124th Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Charlotte.

  • Sohl, L. E., Chandler, M. A., & Zhou, J. (2013). Meeting the Next Generation Science Standards through “rediscovered” climate model experiments. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco.

  • Sterman, J. D., & Sweeney, L. B. (2002). Cloudy skies: Assessing public understanding of global warming. Syst Dyn Rev, 18(2), 207–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J., Franck, T., Fiddaman, T., Jones, A., McCauley, S., Rice, P., Sawin, E., Siegel, L., & Rooney-Varga, J. N. (2015). World climate: A role-play simulation of climate negotiations. Simulation and Gaming, 46(3–4), 348–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., & Rudolph, J. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curricula. Sci Educ, 85(3), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J., & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donavan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. J Res Sci Teach, 49(4), 515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tochon, F. V. (2007). From video cases to video pedagogy: A framework for video feedback and reflection in pedagogical research praxis. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 53–65). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visintainer, T., & Linn, M. (2015). Sixth-grade students progress in understanding the mechanisms of global climate change. J Sci Educ Technol, 24(2–3), 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol, 66(4), 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a McGill University Richard H. Tomlinson Fellowship in University Science Teaching.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, McGill University, Room 705 Burnside Hall Building, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC, H3A 0B9, Canada

    Drew Bush & Renee Sieber

  2. McGill School of Environment, McGill University, 3534 University Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada

    Drew Bush & Renee Sieber

  3. School of Education, Iowa State University, 1620 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA, USA

    Gale Seiler

  4. Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, NASA-GISS, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY, 10025, USA

    Mark Chandler

Authors
  1. Drew Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renee Sieber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gale Seiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Chandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drew Bush.

Ethics declarations

All procedures in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study, pre-tests, and pilot research were each approved by the appropriate McGill University Research Ethics Board (File Numbers 347-0214, 288-0113, and 321-0312). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 460 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bush, D., Sieber, R., Seiler, G. et al. Examining Educational Climate Change Technology: How Group Inquiry Work with Realistic Scientific Technology Alters Classroom Learning. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 147–164 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9714-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9714-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation