Shawna McMahon, John Moore & Biodiversity Team Colorado State University

Endangered Species Conservation as a Context for Understanding Student Thinking about Genetic Diversity2011 NARST Presentation

Written by: Shawna McMahon and John Moore (Colorado State University)Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy

Long Term Ecological Research Math Science PartnershipApril 2011

Disclaimer: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation: Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF-0832173). Any opinions, findings,

and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Shawna McMahon, John Moore & Biodiversity TeamColorado State University

Endangered Species Conservation as a Context for Understanding Student Thinking

about Genetic Diversity

Learning Progressions for Environmental Literacy Motivation & Context

Learning Progressions for Environmental Literacy

Research Goals

• Explore student thinking about genetic diversity in the context of endangered species – do they even think about it?

• Evaluate if “place” plays a role in this thinking – specifically, will answers differ between charismatic, distant megafauna and local, less charismatic organisms?


Sample of Framework:Genetic Diversity @ Individual/Population

Scale Processes Observations Principles

Individual Life cyclesPhenotypic variation over an individual’s lifetime

Phenotypic variation due to developmental changes and/or plasticity

An organism’s physical traits and behaviors are the result of genes being expressed within a determined range, moderated by the environment

Population Change in genetic make-up of populations over time & space

Phenotypic variability within populationsDifferential survival & reproduction

Specifically, phenotypic & genotypic variability among individuals in and among populations


Captive Breeding


Level 1 Answers:Relationships, Aesthetics, Protectionism

Level Rubric Description

L1 Focus is on the individual and is often strongly anthropomorphic. Students are thinking about animals in human terms (what makes a good group of humans would make a good group of animals), so they may be protecting the small, sick & weak animals or they might be choosing family units for the animals' emotional well-being. Other variables used to choose animals are familiar traits (e.g. age, aesthetics (pretty, cute, etc.), personality, etc.) without a reason as to why these traits would be valuable or lead to reproductive success.

Student 1219 (8th Grade, Plover): “i would get the ones who needed the most help”Student 709 (10th Grade, Polar Bear): “i w ould slect the non violent ones that can have self controll.the bears that are nice and polayful and that look interesting.i would only choose 4”

Student 1015 (9th Grade Polar Bear): “i would select a group that is healthy and very good in the wild. i would look for nice fur, good survival instincs, and friendly. i would choose the same amount of male and female.”


Level 2 Answers:Healthy & Reproductive


L2 Answer focuses on health of the individual (e.g. large, strong, healthy). Health is important for the individual to survive in the program but is not really used as an indicator of fitness. Age may be discussed in the context of the animals being of appropriate reproductive age. Students may choose animals randomly but without indicating why that is important. Time scale is "long time" without mentioning hereditary information - focus is on individuals rather than lineages.

Student 1230 (7th Grade, Warbler): “I will probably choose healthy birds, so they live longer.I would look for young, entergetic birds. I would choose about 10 males and 10 females, to be safe.


Level 3 Answers:Best Adapted


L3 Answer focuses on picking the best traits that are suited/adapted to a particular environment. The selection process is eugenic - focus on the good and specifically avoid bad genes (or the products of bad genes). Students may select individuals randomly to get unrelated individuals but does not specify why that is important. They may also choose randomly to avoid depopulating an area. Students are considering multiple generations (a focus on the population rather than the individual mating pairs) with traits being passed from parents to offspring.

Student 1127 (12th Grade, Polar Bear): “I would look for the polar bears that are the biggest size population because those seem to be surviving the best and probably have characteristics best suted to there envronment.”


Level 4 Answers:Genetic Variation for Future Adaptation


L4 Picking a variety of traits for a plausible reason such as preparation for future change, avoiding inbreeding depression, disease resistance, etc. May specifically say that individuals are chosen at random, but must be obvious that it is for genetic variation not for avoiding depopulation. Population must retain some diversity that is not necessarily "good" - focus shifts away from only good traits to traits that could allow for adaptation to future change.

Student 1219 (8th Grade, Plover): “i would look for a lot of different birds w/ different characteristics. i would choose just the weak or just the strong birds because if you take stonger birds you can mess up the ecosystem and if you take the weaker ones and try to re introduce them back into the wild, they'll probably die. when you get a mix of strong and waek ones you keep the gene pool varied and give the birds a better chance of survival”

Student 765 (9th Grade, Polar Bear): “I would select a fairly large group that had sufficient genetic diversity in order to preserve as many traits and variations as possible.“

Learning Progressions for Environmental Literacy All Animals Together

266(79%)

289(88%)

n = (L1-4) =


Distant vs. Local - California

29(71%)

17(50%)

n = (L1-4) =

Learning Progressions for Environmental Literacy Distant vs. Local - Colorado

54(84%)

58(79%)

42(95%)

46(90%)

n = (L1-4) =

n = (L1-4) =

Learning Progressions for Environmental Literacy Distant vs. Local - Michigan

40(93%)

49(92%)

n = (L1-4) =

57(92%)

66(92%)

n = (L1-4) =

Learning Progressions for Environmental Literacy Distant vs. Local – MD & NY

17(89%)

19(95%)

n = (L1-4) =

17(77%)

24(96%)

n = (L1-4) =


Overall:All Grades/Sites by Animals

268(86%)

17(68%)

104(84%)

n = (L1-4) =

115(92%)

44(96%)


Summary of Findings

• HS slightly higher than MS• Not much difference in distant vs. local

species• Some differences between site

(especially NY)• Good context for talking about genetic

diversity in populations

Future: Design an intervention that helps kids explore genetic diversity & its consequences

Shawna McMahon, John Moore & Biodiversity Team Colorado State University

Documents

Transcript of Shawna McMahon, John Moore & Biodiversity Team Colorado State University