The topic I think would work well for an ADI experience is trophic cascades. Trophic cascades are addressed by Performance Indicator 3210.2.1, which states "predict how population changes of organisms at different tropic levels affect an ecosystem". This performance indicator is covered by questions 1, 2, 23, 24, and 25 on the EOC Item Sampler for Biology Form 3.
Step 1: Introduction:
Introduction: So far we have discussed population changes in trophic levels with respect to an organism decreasing in numbers; however, population changes in trophic levels can pertain to an organism increasing in numbers as well. As an example, gray wolves (Canis lupus) were commonly found throughout the forests in Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan (the U.P.) before being hunted to near extinction in the mid 1900s. With a such a small population of wolves, their natural prey, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), experienced a boom in the population. The increase in white-tailed deer shifted the composition and structure of the plant community in the northern forests. Due to protection in recent decades from the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves have begun to naturally recolonize parts of Wisconsin and the U.P. and have an impact on the organisms living there.
The Problem: You are a scientist that works for the Department of Natural Resources in Wisconsin. In December 2014, gray wolves were re-listed as endangered, and since the re-listing, there has been significant backlash from the community (especially farmers and hunters). As a response to the backlash, the Wisconsin DNR has scheduled town hall meetings across the state in the hopes of educating people about changes in trophic levels in an ecosystem. Your boss wants you to create a model to present and a write-up to handout at the town hall meetings that explain the effect of wolves on the forest community in Wisconsin.
Step 2: Laboratory-based experience:
Because this prompt deals with changes happening over a long period of time and with large animals that can be difficult to track, it makes sense that they would not be collecting data but would be analyzing data instead. Students will have access to the internet, print outs of scientific papers, and books. Students will design a brief investigation proposal and will then be able to use the available resources to gather necessary information. Students will be provided an abundance of information which may or may not be relevant given the way they decide to design their model.
In the specific task outlined above, students would need to collect data on what a food web looks like in that ecosystem and which organisms occupy which trophic levels. They would also need to collect data on how populations of those organisms have changed over time (with specific date stamps to correlate to wolf population changes). Students might also research why farmers and hunters are specifically opposed to the protection of gray wolves.
Step 3: Production of a tentative argument:
Because the task specifically asks students to design a model, this will be part of their argumentation stage. They can design any model they think would be effective at communicating the information they deem is necessary. In addition to creating a model, students will have to develop an explanation, evidence, and reasoning in this stage that is relevant to the model and the decisions they made.
For the specific task mentioned above, students could create a multitude of models. They could create a computational agent-based model. They could create a pen and paper model. They could do an embodied modeling activity. They could focus on the effects of the recolonization by wolves or they could focus on the effects of the boom in deer. The main component of this step is what evidence the students choose to use and what they choose to leave out as a result of the model they are creating as well as why they are choosing to create that model.
Step 4: Argumentation session:
During the argumentation section, students will present their models and arguments to the rest of the class in a round-robin format as discussed in Sampson and Gleim. The students will ask questions and critique specific aspects to push their peers to deeper thought and analysis about the decisions they made in the construction of their models. The variety of models presented and the difference in focus will challenge students and grow their learning.
With the specific task provided to the students, I would expect to see a wide variety of types of models and a wide variety of angles to the model. I would be very surprised to see two models that looked very similar because the students could run a lot of different directions with the information provided.
Step 5: Investigation report:
After the argumentation sessions, students will be expected to create a write-up of their investigation, model, and argument. This will challenge students to learn how to write scientifically and to recognize the importance of writing as a method of communication in science.
With the task provided, I would expect there be a significant portion of the investigation report justifying the decisions made in the direction taken with the investigation.
Step 6: Double-blind peer review
Students will review one another's write-ups with a copy of a standardized rubric. They will not know who they are evaluating or who is evaluating them, so each student receives the best possible feedback and provides the best possible feedback. After evaluating each report, the evaluator will decide if the the report needs to be revised or is acceptable as is. This continues to push students to think deeply about the content they are covering.
Step 7: Revision of the report
Step 8: Reflection/Discussion:
Students will have a round-table discussion that allows them to reflect on the experience they had with ADI and to discuss what they have learned from the experience. The connection between ADI and the process scientists go through in their work can be made explicit here, and the teacher can answer any questions students still have.
Step 1: Introduction:
Introduction: So far we have discussed population changes in trophic levels with respect to an organism decreasing in numbers; however, population changes in trophic levels can pertain to an organism increasing in numbers as well. As an example, gray wolves (Canis lupus) were commonly found throughout the forests in Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan (the U.P.) before being hunted to near extinction in the mid 1900s. With a such a small population of wolves, their natural prey, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), experienced a boom in the population. The increase in white-tailed deer shifted the composition and structure of the plant community in the northern forests. Due to protection in recent decades from the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves have begun to naturally recolonize parts of Wisconsin and the U.P. and have an impact on the organisms living there.
The Problem: You are a scientist that works for the Department of Natural Resources in Wisconsin. In December 2014, gray wolves were re-listed as endangered, and since the re-listing, there has been significant backlash from the community (especially farmers and hunters). As a response to the backlash, the Wisconsin DNR has scheduled town hall meetings across the state in the hopes of educating people about changes in trophic levels in an ecosystem. Your boss wants you to create a model to present and a write-up to handout at the town hall meetings that explain the effect of wolves on the forest community in Wisconsin.
Step 2: Laboratory-based experience:
Because this prompt deals with changes happening over a long period of time and with large animals that can be difficult to track, it makes sense that they would not be collecting data but would be analyzing data instead. Students will have access to the internet, print outs of scientific papers, and books. Students will design a brief investigation proposal and will then be able to use the available resources to gather necessary information. Students will be provided an abundance of information which may or may not be relevant given the way they decide to design their model.
In the specific task outlined above, students would need to collect data on what a food web looks like in that ecosystem and which organisms occupy which trophic levels. They would also need to collect data on how populations of those organisms have changed over time (with specific date stamps to correlate to wolf population changes). Students might also research why farmers and hunters are specifically opposed to the protection of gray wolves.
Step 3: Production of a tentative argument:
Because the task specifically asks students to design a model, this will be part of their argumentation stage. They can design any model they think would be effective at communicating the information they deem is necessary. In addition to creating a model, students will have to develop an explanation, evidence, and reasoning in this stage that is relevant to the model and the decisions they made.
For the specific task mentioned above, students could create a multitude of models. They could create a computational agent-based model. They could create a pen and paper model. They could do an embodied modeling activity. They could focus on the effects of the recolonization by wolves or they could focus on the effects of the boom in deer. The main component of this step is what evidence the students choose to use and what they choose to leave out as a result of the model they are creating as well as why they are choosing to create that model.
Step 4: Argumentation session:
During the argumentation section, students will present their models and arguments to the rest of the class in a round-robin format as discussed in Sampson and Gleim. The students will ask questions and critique specific aspects to push their peers to deeper thought and analysis about the decisions they made in the construction of their models. The variety of models presented and the difference in focus will challenge students and grow their learning.
With the specific task provided to the students, I would expect to see a wide variety of types of models and a wide variety of angles to the model. I would be very surprised to see two models that looked very similar because the students could run a lot of different directions with the information provided.
Step 5: Investigation report:
After the argumentation sessions, students will be expected to create a write-up of their investigation, model, and argument. This will challenge students to learn how to write scientifically and to recognize the importance of writing as a method of communication in science.
With the task provided, I would expect there be a significant portion of the investigation report justifying the decisions made in the direction taken with the investigation.
Step 6: Double-blind peer review
Students will review one another's write-ups with a copy of a standardized rubric. They will not know who they are evaluating or who is evaluating them, so each student receives the best possible feedback and provides the best possible feedback. After evaluating each report, the evaluator will decide if the the report needs to be revised or is acceptable as is. This continues to push students to think deeply about the content they are covering.
Step 7: Revision of the report
Step 8: Reflection/Discussion:
Students will have a round-table discussion that allows them to reflect on the experience they had with ADI and to discuss what they have learned from the experience. The connection between ADI and the process scientists go through in their work can be made explicit here, and the teacher can answer any questions students still have.
I like how your activity allows for variability within it while still learning essential vocabulary and concepts. The fact that no two models should look exactly alike is neat and I can see how that would expose the whole class to many different perspectives because each group is creating their own experience.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete