Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 267–300 | Cite as

Transforming “Ecosystem” from a Scientific Concept into a Teachable Topic: Philosophy and History of Ecology Informs Science Textbook Analysis

  • Dimitrios Schizas
  • Efimia Papatheodorou
  • George Stamou
Article

Abstract

This study conducts a textbook analysis in the frame of the following working hypothesis: The transformation of scientific knowledge into school knowledge is expected to reproduce the problems encountered with the scientific knowledge itself or generate additional problems, which may both induce misconceptions in textbook users. Specifically, we describe four epistemological problems associated with how the concept of “ecosystem” is elaborated within ecological science and we examine how each problem is reproduced in the biology textbook utilized by Greek students in the 12th grade and the resulting teacher and student misunderstandings that may occur. Our research demonstrates that the authors of the textbook address these problems by appealing simultaneously to holistic and reductionist ideas. This results in a meaningless and confused depiction of “ecosystem” and may provoke many serious misconceptions on the part of textbook users, for example, that an ecosystem is a system that can be applied to every set of interrelated ecological objects irrespective of the organizational level to which these entities belong or how these entities are related to each other. The implications of these phenomena for science education research are discussed from a perspective that stresses the role of background assumptions in the understanding of declarative knowledge.

Keywords

Ecosystem Holism Misconceptions Philosophy of ecology Textbook analysis 

References

  1. Adamantiadou, S., Georgatou, M., Papitzakis, C., Lakka, L., Notaras, D., Florentin, N., Chatzigeorgiou, G., & Chatzikonti, O. (2013). Biology. Athens: Institute of Computer Technology and Publications ‘Diofantos’.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltas, A. (2007). Background ‘assumptions’ and the grammar of conceptual change: rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakousi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63–79). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Baltas, A. (1986). Ideological “ assumptions” in physics: social determinations of internal structures. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 130–151.Google Scholar
  5. Baltas, A. (1991). On some structural aspects of physical problems. Synthese, 89(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, S., & Slingsby, D. (1998). From nature tablet to niche: curriculum progression in ecological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergandi, D. (1995). “Reductionist holism”: an oxymoron or a philosophical chimera of E.P. Odum’s systems ecology? Ludus Vitalis, 3(5), 145–180.Google Scholar
  8. Bergandi, D., & Blandin, P. (1998). Holism vs. reductionism: do ecosystem ecology and landscape ecology clarify the debate? Acta Biotheoretica, 46, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergandi, D. (2000). Eco-cybernetics: the ecology and cybernetics of missing emergences. Kybernetes, 29(7/8), 928–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowers, C. (2001). How language limits our understanding of environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caravita, S., Valente, A., Pace, P., Valanides, N., Khalil, I., Berthou, G., Kozan-Naumescu, A., & Clement, P. (2008). Construction and validation of textbook analysis grids for ecology and environmental education. Science Education International, 19, 97–116.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, F. E. (1905). Research methods in ecology. Lincoln, NE: University Printing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clements, F. E. (1916). Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington (C.I.W. Publication no. 242).Google Scholar
  14. Cherrett, J. M. (1989). Key concepts: the results of a survey of members’ opinions. In J. M. Cherrett (Ed.), Ecological concepts: the contribution of ecology to an understanding of the natural world (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.Google Scholar
  16. Cho, H., Kahle, J., & Nordland, F. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clifford, P. (2002). The pressure-flow hypothesis of phloem transport: misconceptions in the A-level textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 110–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Çobanoglu, E. O., Sahin, B., & Karakaya, C. (2009). Examination of the biology textbook for 10th grades in high school education and the ideas of the pre-service teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2504–2512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Laplante, K., & Picasso, V. (2011). The biodiversity-ecosystem function debate in ecology. In K. de Laplante, B. Brown, K. Peacock (Eds.), Philosophy of ecology handbook (pp. 169–200). Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  20. Dikmenli, M., & Çardak, O. (2004). A study on misconceptions in the 9th grade high school biology textbooks. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17, 130–141.Google Scholar
  21. Dikmenli, M., Çardak, O., & Oztas, F. (2009). Conceptual problems in biology-related topics in primary science and technology textbooks in Turkey. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 429–440.Google Scholar
  22. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dreyfus, A., Wals, A., & Van Weelie, D. (1999). Biodiversity as a postmodern theme for environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 155–176.Google Scholar
  24. El-Hani, C. N., & Emmeche, C. (2000). On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology: property emergence, supervenience, and downward causation. Theory in Biosciences, 119(3–4), 234–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emmecke, C., Koppe, S., & Stjernfelt, F. (1997). Explaining emergence: toward an ontology of levels. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 28, 83–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engelberg, J., & Boyarsky, L. (1979). The noncybernetic nature of ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 114, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fath, B. D., & Patten, B. C. (1999). Review of the foundations of network environ analysis. Ecosystems, 2, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibson, D. J. (1996). Textbook misconceptions: the climax concept of succession. The American Biology Teacher, 58(3), 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Golley, F. B. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. More than the sum of the parts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Golley, F. B. (2000). Ecosystem structure. In: S. Jørgensen, & F. Muller (Εds.), Handbook of ecosystem theories and management, (pp 21–32). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Hagen, J. (1989). Research perspectives and the anomalous status of modern ecology. Biology & Philosophy, 4, 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hammond, D. (1997). Ecology and ideology in the general systems community. Environment and History, 3(2), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html
  34. Hershey, D. R. (2005). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from actionbioscience.org. hhtp://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey3.html
  35. Hovardas, T. (2012). A critical reading of ecocentrism and its meta-scientific use of ecology: instrumental versus emancipatory approaches in environmental education and ecology education. Science & Education, 22(6), 1467–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jax, K. (1998). Holocene and ecosystem—on the origin and historical consequences of two concepts. Journal of the History of Biology, 31, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jax, K. (2007). Can we define ecosystems? On the confusion between definition and description of ecological concepts. Acta Biotheoretica, 55, 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jørgensen, S. E., Patten, B. C., & Straškraba, M. (1999). Ecosystems emerging: 3. Openness. Ecological Modelling, 117(1), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kavsut, G. (2010). Investigation of science and technology textbook in terms of the factors that may lead to misconceptions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2088–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Khine, S. M. (2013). Critical analysis of science textbooks. Evaluating instructional effectiveness. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. King, C. J. H. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Korfiatis, K. J. (2005). Environmental education and the science of ecology: exploration of an uneasy relationship. Environmental Education Research, 11, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Korfiatis, K. J., & Stamou, G. P. (1994). Emergence of new fields in ecology: the case of life history studies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 16, 97–116.Google Scholar
  44. Kwa, C. (1987). Representations of nature mediating between ecology and science policy: the case of the International Biological Programme. Social Studies of Science, 17(3), 413–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kwa, C. (1989). Mimicking nature: the development of systems ecology in the United States, 1950–1975. Doctoral dissertation. Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Kwa, C. (2002). Romantic and baroque conceptions of complex wholes in the sciences. In J. Law & A. Mol (Eds.), Complexities: social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 23–52). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lebrun, J., Lenoir, Y., Laforest, M., Larose, F., Roy, G., Spallanzani, C., & Pearson, M. (2002). Past and current trends in the analysis of textbooks in a Quebec context. Curriculum Inquiry, 32, 51–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lederman, N., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: a pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lefkaditou, A., & Stamou, G. (2006). Holism and reductionism in ecology: a trivial dichotomy and Levins’ non-trivial account. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28, 313–336.Google Scholar
  51. Lefkaditou, A. (2012). Is ecology a holistic science, after all? In G. P. Stamou (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp.46–66). Oak Park: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Lefkaditou A, Korfiatis K, & Hovardas T (2014) Contextualising the teaching and learning of ecology: historical and philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 523–550). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Lemoni, R., Lefkaditou, A., Stamou, A. G., Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. P. (2013). Views of nature and the human-nature relations: an analysis of the visual syntax of pictures about the environment in Greek primary school textbooks—diachronic considerations. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levins, R. (1998). Dialectics and systems theory. Science & Society, 62, 375–399.Google Scholar
  55. Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1980). Dialectics and reductionism ecology. Synthese, 43, 47–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Loehle, C., & Pechmann, J. H. (1988). Evolution: the missing ingredient in systems ecology. American Naturalist, 884–899.Google Scholar
  57. Looijen, R. (1998). Holism and reductionism in biology and ecology. The mutual dependence of higher and lower level research programmes. Doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  58. Magntorn, O., & Helldén, G. (2007). Reading new environments: students’ ability to generalise their understanding between different ecosystems. International Journal of Science Education, 29(1), 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mahmood, A., Nudrat, S., & Asdaque, M. M. (2011). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers: a comparative analysis of gender, urban and rural schools. Asian Social Science, 7, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mansson, B., & McGlade, J. (1993). Ecology, thermodynamics and H.T. Odum’s conjectures. Oecologia, 93, 582–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marshal, A. (2002). The unity of nature. Wholeness and disintegration in ecology and science. London: Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Matthews, M. R. (1994). History, philosophy, and science teaching: a useful alliance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. The nature of science in science education, 5, 3–39.Google Scholar
  64. McIntosh, R. (1985). The background of ecology: concept and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Morrone, M., Mancl, K., & Carr, K. (2001). Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1994). Investigating in the school science laboratory: conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nikisianis, N., & Stamou, G. P. (2010). Quantifying nature: ideological representations in the concept of diversity. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33(3), 365–388.Google Scholar
  68. Nikisianis N, & Stamou G P (2012) The ideology of diversity. In Stamou, G.P. (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp.93–121). Oak Park: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  69. Odom, A. L. (1993). Action potentials and biology textbooks: accurate, misconceptions or avoidance? The American Biology Teacher, 55(8), 468–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Palladino, P. (1991). Defining ecology: ecological theories, mathematical models, and applied biology in the 1960s and 1970s. Journal of the History of Biology, 24(2), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Patten, B., & Odum, H. (1981). The cybernetic nature of ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 118, 886–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Perrenoud, P. (1984). La fabrication de l’excellence scolaire. Geneve: Droz.Google Scholar
  73. Reiners, W. (1986). Complementary models for ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 127, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sagoff, M. (2003). The plaza and the pendulum: two concepts of ecological science. Biology and Philosophy, 18(4), 529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Salt, G. (1979). A comment on the use of the term emergent properties. The American Naturalist, 113, 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shepardson, D., & Pizzini, E. (1991). Questioning levels of junior high school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science Education, 75, 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schizas, D. (2012). Systems ecology reloaded: a critical assessment focusing on the relations between science and ideology. In G. P. Stamou (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp.67–92). Oak Park: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  78. Schizas, D. G., & Stamou, G. P. (2005). Network rethinking of nature and society. Ludus Vitalis, 24, 55–82.Google Scholar
  79. Schizas, D. G., & Stamou, G. P. (2006). The concept of life and its significance in the construction of the new ecosystem ecology of bernard patten, Sven Jørgensen and Milan Straškraba. History and philosophy of the life sciences, 28, 49–65.Google Scholar
  80. Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. (2007). What ecosystems really are—physicochemical or biological entities? Ecological Modelling, 200, 178–182.Google Scholar
  81. Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. (2010). Beyond identity crisis: the challenge of recontextualizing ecosystem delimitation. Ecological Modelling, 221, 1630–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schizas, D., Katrana, E., & Stamou, G. P. (2013). Introducing network analysis into science education: methodological research examining secondary school students’ understanding of “decomposition”. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(1), 175–198.Google Scholar
  83. Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 8(4), 706–733.Google Scholar
  84. Shrader-Frechette, K. S., & McCoy, E. D. (1993). Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simberloff, D. (1980). A succession of paradigms in ecology: essentialism to materialism and probabilism. Synthese, 43(1), 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stamou, A. G., Lefkaditou, A., Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. P. (2009). The discourse of environmental information: representations of nature and forms of rhetoric in the information centre of a Greek reserve. Science Communication, 31, 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stamou, G. P. (2012). Critical realism and ecological studies. In G. P. Stamou (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp. 3–27). Oak Park: Bentham Science.Google Scholar
  88. Storey, R. D. (1992). Textbook errors and misconceptions in biology: cell physiology. The American Biology Teacher, 54(4), 200–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Swanepoel, S. (2010). The assessment of the quality of science education textbooks: conceptual framework and instruments for analysis. Doctoral dissertation. University of South Africa.Google Scholar
  90. Tansley, A. (1920). The classification of vegetation and the concept of development. Journal of Ecology, 8, 118–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tansley, A. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Taylor, P. J. (1988). Technocratic optimism, HT Odum, and the partial transformation of ecological metaphor after World War II. Journal of the History of Biology, 21(2), 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Taylor, P. (2005). Unruly complexity: ecology, interpretation and engagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Taylor, P. (1992). Community. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 52–60). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Trepl, L., & Voigt, A. (2011). The classical holism-reductionism debate in ecology. Ecology Revisited, 45–83.Google Scholar
  96. Van der Steen, W. (1993). A practical philosophy for the life sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  97. Van Weelie, D., & Wals, A. (2002). Making biodiversity meaningful through environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1143–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Villaverde, L. (2003). Secondary schools. A reference handbook (contemporary education issues). Santa Barbara: Abc-Clio Inc.Google Scholar
  99. Whittaker, R. H. (1948). A vegetation analysis of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ph.D. thesis, University of IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  100. Worster, D. (1990). The ecology of order and chaos. Environmental History Review, 14, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Worster, D. (1993). The wealth of nature: environmental history and the ecological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s economy. A history of ecological ideas. USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. 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 Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios Schizas
    • 1
  • Efimia Papatheodorou
    • 1
  • George Stamou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, School of BiologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations