Next Article in Journal
Groundwater Circulation in Fractured and Karstic Aquifers of the Umbria-Marche Apennine
Next Article in Special Issue
Water from the Perspective of Education for Sustainable Development: An Exploratory Study in the Spanish Secondary Education Curriculum
Previous Article in Journal
A Direct Approach for the Near-Optimal Design of Water Distribution Networks Based on Power Use
Previous Article in Special Issue
Flipped Learning Approach as Educational Innovation in Water Literacy
Article

Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems

School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(4), 1040; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041040
Received: 18 February 2020 / Revised: 24 March 2020 / Accepted: 24 March 2020 / Published: 7 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Literacy and Education)
One of the keys to science and environmental literacy is systems thinking. Learning how to think about the interactions between systems, the far-reaching effects of a system, and the dynamic nature of systems are all critical outcomes of science learning. However, students need support to develop systems thinking skills in undergraduate geoscience classrooms. While systems thinking-focused instruction has the potential to benefit student learning, gaps exist in our understanding of students’ use of systems thinking to operationalize and model SHS, as well as their metacognitive evaluation of systems thinking. To address this need, we have designed, implemented, refined, and studied an introductory-level, interdisciplinary course focused on coupled human-water, or sociohydrologic, systems. Data for this study comes from three consecutive iterations of the course and involves student models and explanations for a socio-hydrologic issue (n = 163). To analyze this data, we counted themed features of the drawn models and applied an operationalization rubric to the written responses. Analyses of the written explanations reveal statistically-significant differences between underlying categories of systems thinking (F(5, 768) = 401.6, p < 0.05). Students were best able to operationalize their systems thinking about problem identification (M = 2.22, SD = 0.73) as compared to unintended consequences (M = 1.43, SD = 1.11). Student-generated systems thinking models revealed statistically significant differences between system components, patterns, and mechanisms, F(2, 132) = 3.06, p < 0.05. Students focused most strongly on system components (M = 13.54, SD = 7.15) as compared to related processes or mechanisms. Qualitative data demonstrated three types of model limitation including scope/scale, temporal, and specific components/mechanisms/patterns excluded. These findings have implications for supporting systems thinking in undergraduate geoscience classrooms, as well as insight into links between these two skills. View Full-Text
Keywords: undergraduate; systems thinking; water; geoscience undergraduate; systems thinking; water; geoscience
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lally, D.; Forbes, C.T. Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems. Water 2020, 12, 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041040

AMA Style

Lally D, Forbes CT. Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems. Water. 2020; 12(4):1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041040

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lally, Diane, and Cory T. Forbes 2020. "Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems" Water 12, no. 4: 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041040

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop