Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 511–530 | Cite as

Students’ Reasoning about the Future of Disturbed or Protected Ecosystems & the Idea of the ‘Balance of Nature’

  • Marida Ergazaki
  • Georgios Ampatzidis
Article

Abstract

This paper is part of a larger study that aims at highlighting students’ interpretations of the idea of the ‘Balance of Nature’, as well as its use in their reasoning about the future of an ecosystem, in order to subsequently develop a learning environment that might promote a reconsideration of its validity and usefulness. Our focus here is particularly set on whether and how non biology-major students use this idea when making predictions about (a) the future of an ecosystem that is supposed to have suffered a human-driven disturbance, and (b) the future of an ecosystem that is supposed to be protected against such disturbances. Administering a questionnaire of 12 items - 4 of which concern us here - to 61 1st-year educational sciences students at the University of Patras, we traced - among others - their reasoning about (a) the future of three ecosystems (forest, sea, lake), supposed to have suffered different human-driven disturbances (fire, oil spill, new population introduction), and (b) the future of a protected forest ecosystem of a national park. According to our findings, most of the students found it very likely for a disturbed ecosystem to fully recover its initial state - mainly due to a ‘recovery process’ or inherent ‘recovery mechanisms’ - showing a strong belief in an extremely resilient ‘Balance of Nature’. Moreover, most of them appeared to believe that if human-protected, an ecosystem will be in a continuous ‘balance’, while very few were skeptical enough to claim a non-predictable future for it.

Keywords

‘Balance of Nature’ Humans and ‘Balance of Nature’ Students’ reasoning about nature Students’ predictions about ecosystems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank very much the students of the ‘Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education’ of the University of Patras, who volunteered to take part in this study.

References

  1. Adamantiadou, S., Georgatou, M., Papitzakis, X., Lakka, L., Notaras, D., Florentin, N., et al. (2007). Biology of general education for the 3rd grade of Luceum. Athens-Greece: O.E.D.B.Google Scholar
  2. Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901.Google Scholar
  3. Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, G. (2001). Must there be a balance of nature? Biology and Philosophy, 16, 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuddington, K. (2001). The ‘balance of nature’ metaphor and equilibrium in population ecology. Biology and Philosophy, 16, 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Ruiter, P. C., Wolters, V., Moore, J. C., & Winemiller, K. O. (2005). Food web ecology: playing Jeng and beyond. Science, 309, 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engstroem, Y. (1981). The laws of nature and the origin of life in pupils’ conciousness: a study of contradictory modes of thought. Scandinavian Journal of Ecucational Research, 25(82), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garvin-Doxas, K., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2008). Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: lessons learnt from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI). Life Sciences Education, 7, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jansen, A. J. (1972). An analysis of ‘balance in nature’ as an ecological concept. Acta Biotheoretica, 21(1–2), 86–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jelemenska, P., & Kattmann, U. (2008). Understanding the units of nature: From reification to reflection. A contribution to Educational Reconstruction in the field of ecology. In M. Hammann, M. Reis, C. Boulter, S. Dale, M. Hammann, M. Reis, C. Boulter, & S. Dale Tunnicliffe (Eds.), Biology in context: Learning and teaching for the twenty-first century (pp. 29–39). London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klymkowsky, M. W., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008). Recognizing student misconceptions through Ed’s tools and the biology concept inventory. PLoS Biology, 6(1), e3. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korfiatis, K., Stamou, A., & Paraskevopoulos, S. (2004). Images of nature in Greek primary school textbooks. Science Education, 88, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kricher, J. (2009). The balance of nature: Ecology’s enduring myth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ladle, R. J., & Gillson, L. (2008). The (im)balance of nature: a public perception time-lag? Public Understanding of Science, 18(2), 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mead, L. S., & Scott, E. C. (2010). Problem concepts in evolution part II: cause and chance. Evo Edu Outreach, 3, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Picket, S. T. A., Parker, V. T., & Fiedler, P. L. (1992). The new paradigm in ecology: Impolications for conservation biology above the species level. In P. L. Fiedler & S. K. Jain (Eds.), Conservation biology (pp. 65–88). New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: a study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sander, E., Jelemenska, P., & Kattmann, U. (2006). Towards a better understanding of ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Westra, R. (2008). Learning and teaching ecosystem behaviour in secondary education. Castricum: Faculteit Betawetenschappen.Google Scholar
  24. Westra, R., Boersma, K., Savelsberg, E., & Warloo, A. J. (2008). Towards understanding ecosystem behaviour through systems thinking and modeling. In M. Hammann, M. Reis, C. Boulter, & S. Dale Tunnicliffe (Eds.), Biology in context: Learning and teaching for the twenty-first century (pp. 205–216). London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  25. Zimmerman, C., & Cuddington, K. (2007). Ambiguous, circular and polysemous: students’ definitions of the ‘balance of nature’ metaphor. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Sciences & Early Childhood EducationUniversity of PatrasRio-PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations