Cognitive frameworks as learning prerequisites for biodiversity:

Overall question

Which cognitive frameworks relevant for the topic biodiversity, biodiversity loss and resource dilemmas can be identified in Chilean and German adolescents?

Constructivism and cognitive frameworks

Learners are not blank pages when we confront them with a new topic. Every pupil has his or her own life experience upon which he or she unconsciously decides how new information will be processed. The theory of constructivism has been looking at learning processes under the focus of a person’s subjective experiences for more than three decades now (cf. Carey, 1985; Caravita & Halldén, 1994; von Glasersfeld, 2005; Piaget, 1974).

Within the theory of constructivism, the main assumptions are built upon the idea that learners are active constructors of their knowledge. By doing so, learners build cognitive frameworks based on their individual experiences from early childhood. Cognitive frameworks emerge when experiences are repeatedly made. In the tradition of constructivism, there are two possibilities to process new information once a cognitive framework has been constructed. The first is when the new information can be transformed to fit into the already-existing frame of reference. This process of transforming information in order to be able to interpret it on the basis of an existing framework, is defined as assimilation. However, when the newly discovered information does not fit into the learner’s framework (by being too different or by contradicting the learner’s framework), or when the contradicting information is repeatedly provided, the learner can accommodate his or her cognitive framework (Carey, 1985; Hynd, McWorther, Phares & Suttles, 1994; Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982). By doing so, the framework is transformed and is then different in structure. However, the more stable an already-existing framework is, the more likely will the newly acquired knowledge be transformed to fit into the cognitive structure (Driver & Erickson, 1983). Although a critical discussion emerged on early (and especially radical) constructivism⁶, a moderate form of constructivism can be helpful to understand how a basic understanding of a new topic emerges in the learner (Duit & Treagust, 2003;

Gerstenmeier & Mandl, 1995).

The above-outlined theoretical assumptions were applied to many kinds of learning contexts.

For science learning, the role of cognitive frameworks has been intensively investigated. For

6 For a detailed discussion see von Glasersfeld (2005), Devitt (1984)

instance, Posner and colleagues (Posner et al., 1982) identified conceptual change processes in pupils during science learning. Hynd et al. (1994) looked at the role of instructural variables in science learning from a constructivist perspective. Georghiades (2000) described primary pupils’ difficulties in transferring newly acquired scientific conceptions onto new contexts on the background of conceptual change learning. Vosniadou (1992, 1994) described how robust cognitive frameworks could be obstacles in science learning when they are opposed to a new topic. Even when newly acquired knowledge apparently seemed to be understood, and instructors therefore assumed that the learner’s cognitive framework accommodated, pupils showed a strong tendency to fall back on their previously constructed frameworks. In such cases, no real accommodation took place and learning topics cannot be integrated into the learner’s cognitive framework. In such cases, learning topics are subjectively interpreted, in accordance with existing patterns of thought.

To explore cognitive frameworks, it is helpful to distinguish between them according to their complexity. Groeben, Wahl, Schlee & Scheele (1988) suggest such a classification that reflects the frameworks’ complexity – and, thus, the stability within the human mind. Here, cognitive frameworks are classified as associations, concepts and subjective theories (see fig.

3.1).

Complexity

Cognitive Frameworks

Subjective Theories

Concepts

Associations

Fig. 3.1. The structure of cognitive frameworks after Groeben et al. (1988).

This dissertation follows Groeben et al.’s classification of cognitive frameworks, although an empirical differentiation of the levels is not always possible. Associations, defined as spontaneously manifested links between terms and broad ideas (Strube, 1984), can give precious hints on what pupils have casually or subconsciously perceived about a topic.

Subjective theories, on the other hand, are stable cognitive structures that influence cognitive

frameworks on less complex levels. Therefore, subjective theories are, in the context of this study, the most interesting construct to look at. Assuming that subjective theories are similar to scientific theories and that they serve as structuring elements for the interpretation of newly acquired knowledge, they might be central influential factors for the understanding of ecological, economic, and social aspects of resources dilemmas - which are in turn main drivers for biodiversity loss. For a more detailed presentation of Groeben's classification of cognitive frameworks see chapters 6.3 and 7.3.

Cognitive frameworks on biodiversity

In order to explore pupils’ cognitive frameworks on biodiversity, it is helpful to follow the classification as suggested by Groeben et al. (1988). Being an exploratory approach, we tried to give room to the pupils’ thoughts and ideas on the topic of biodiversity as much as possible. Therefore, in-depth, problem-centered interviews (Witzel, 2000) were chosen as a methodological approach. However, within research focus I, no concrete expectations could be formulated as too little information was provided by previous studies. Most empirical research that focuses on young people and biodiversity, explores pupils’ knowledge of local plant or animal species (cf. Balmford, Clegg, Coulsen &Taylor, 2002; Bebbington, 2005;

Jäkel & Schaer, 2004). A second group of empirical works suggests and evaluates teaching interventions about biodiversity, often focusing on taxonomic knowledge (cf. Berndt, 2000;

Krombass & Harms, 2006). Lindemann-Matthies (2002, 2006) also takes the ecosystem level of biodiversity and psychological perspectives into account. She found that her educational intervention “Species along the school path” positively contributed to both taxonomic knowledge and an appreciation of biodiversity. Moreover, she found that teachers and pupils enjoyed this kind of nature observation. However, no research findings have been provided which investigate ideas on all three levels of biodiversity. Nevertheless, a consideration of biodiversity on all three levels has been described as necessary for biodiversity education (Kassas, 2002; Mayer, 1996).

Furthermore, biodiversity should not only be considered on its three levels, but also in an interdisciplinary perspective. As described in chapter I.1, biodiversity loss is closely connected to the concept of sustainable development. With resource dilemmas as main drivers for biodiversity loss, economic, ecological and social perspectives have to be taken simultaneously into account to adequately understand this challenge for sustainable development. In science education research, a broad range of literature exists to discuss the importance to include socio-scientific issues in science education (cf. Bright & Tarrant, 2002; Eagan, Cook & Joeres 2002; Fien, 2002; Flint, McCarter & Boniwell, 2000;

Herremanns & Reid, 2002; Kyburz-Graber, 2006; Wals & Jickling, 2002). In this regard, biodiversity is seen as a topic that has high potential as biodiversity loss - and especially resource dilemmas! - perfectly represent such socio-scientific issues (Dreyfus et al., 1999;

Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003; van Weelie, 2002; Young, 2001). In opposition to this potential, Gayford (2000) describes difficulties of British teachers to include social aspects of biodiversity loss in their science classes. However, little is known about how pupils perceive biodiversity within the context of socio-scientific issues.

Within research focus I, the outlined research deficits in science education shall be addressed. To achieve this goal, pupils’ cognitive frameworks concerning a) the three levels of biodiversity and b) resource dilemmas, respresenting socio-scientific issues in the context of biodiversity, were explored. With regard to the two samples, it was an additional focus of interest whether certain types of pupils could be identified, showing similar or differing argumentative structures when talking about biodiversity, biodiversity loss and socio-scientific issues, reflected through resource dilemmas.

Research questions

The following overall research questions (Q 1.1 – Q 1.3) stood in the centre of the qualitative research focus of the dissertation.

Q 1.1 Which associations and concepts can be identified with young people from Chile and Germany that either foster or oppose an understanding of biodiversity and resource dilemmas?

Q 1.2 Can types be identified across both samples that reflect prominent subjective theories that are opposed or fostering for an understanding of biodiversity and biodiversity loss?

Q 1.3 How do cognitive frameworks differ between Chilean and German pupils?

The overall research questions will be mainly addressed in chapters four to seven. Chapters four and five present first central results. However, chapters six and seven present data that is the result of deeper analysis. Here, cognitive frameworks were, whenever possible, assigned to different levels of complexity. Furthermore, a typology was designed that reflects prominent subjective theories which emerged from the data.

3.2 Factors influencing pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity: research