DOCUMENT RESUME ED 304 310 SE 050 360 AUTHOR Mandinach, Ellen B. TITLE Self-Regulated Learning Substudy: Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation (STACI) Project. INSTITUTION Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, MA. REPORT NO ETC-TR88-25 PUB DATE Sep 88 NOTE 56p.; Last page (in Appendix C) will be marginally legible because it contains broken type. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Chemistry; *Computer Assisted Instruction; Computer Simulation; Physics; *Problem Solving; *Science Curriculum; *Science Instruction; *Science Materials; Science Programs; *Secondary School Science; Systems Approach IDENTIFIERS Self Regulation; Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation Project ABSTRACT The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation (STACI) Project is a multi-year research effort intended to examine the cognitive demands and consequences of learning from a systems thinking approach to instruction and from using simulation-modeling software. The purpose of the study is to test the potentials and effects of integrating the systems approach into science and history courses to teach content knowledge as well as general problem solving skills. The project also examines the effectiveness of using STELLA, a simulation-modeling software program, as a tool by which to examine scientific and histoLical phenomena. The research focuses on learning outcomes and cognitive processing, particularly self-regulation, that are activated in an instructional environment that requires students to use high-order cognitive skills in the examination of dynamic phenomena. A total of 31 chemistry and 22 physics high school students were selected by criteria (course taking, ability, and gender), interviewed individually, and tape recorded. Appendices include: (1) "Self-Regulation Questionnaire"; (2) "Physics Problem"; and (3) "Chemistry Problem." (YP) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *************************************u*********************************
56
Embed
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 304 310 AUTHOR Mandinach, Ellen B ... · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 304 310 SE 050 360 AUTHOR Mandinach, Ellen B. TITLE Self-Regulated Learning Substudy: Systems Thinking.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 304 310 SE 050 360
AUTHOR Mandinach, Ellen B.TITLE Self-Regulated Learning Substudy: Systems Thinking
and Curriculum Innovation (STACI) Project.INSTITUTION Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, MA.REPORT NO ETC-TR88-25PUB DATE Sep 88NOTE 56p.; Last page (in Appendix C) will be marginally
legible because it contains broken type.PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Chemistry; *Computer Assisted Instruction; Computer
IDENTIFIERS Self Regulation; Systems Thinking and CurriculumInnovation Project
ABSTRACTThe Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation
(STACI) Project is a multi-year research effort intended to examinethe cognitive demands and consequences of learning from a systemsthinking approach to instruction and from using simulation-modelingsoftware. The purpose of the study is to test the potentials andeffects of integrating the systems approach into science and historycourses to teach content knowledge as well as general problem solvingskills. The project also examines the effectiveness of using STELLA,a simulation-modeling software program, as a tool by which to examinescientific and histoLical phenomena. The research focuses on learningoutcomes and cognitive processing, particularly self-regulation, thatare activated in an instructional environment that requires studentsto use high-order cognitive skills in the examination of dynamicphenomena. A total of 31 chemistry and 22 physics high schoolstudents were selected by criteria (course taking, ability, andgender), interviewed individually, and tape recorded. Appendicesinclude: (1) "Self-Regulation Questionnaire"; (2) "Physics Problem";and (3) "Chemistry Problem." (YP)
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING SUBSTUDY:SYSTEMS THINKING AND CURRICULUM INNOVATION
(STACI) PROJECT
September 1988
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION°Meet', Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organaanon
riginatingC M or changes have been made to =prove
reproduction quality
Points ci view or opinions stated m thiStlocu-
ment do not necessardy represent othc,a!OERI posamn or POhcY
Ealscatinial Tedwelegy CarderHarvard Graduate School of Education
337 Gutman Library Appian Way Cambridge MA 02138(617) 495-9373
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
1
Self-Regulated learning Substudy:
Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation (" ACI) Project
Ellen B. Mandinach
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
September, 1988
Self-Regulated, Learning Substudy:
Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation (STACI) Project
The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation (STACI)Project is a multi-year research effort intended, to examinethe cognitive demands and =sequences of learning from asystems thinking approach to instruction and from usingsimulation-modeling software. The purpose of the study is totest the potentials and effects of integrating the systemsapproach into science and history courses to teach contentknowledge as well as general problem solving skills. Theproject also examines the effectiveness of using STELLA, asimulation-modeling software program, as a tool by which toexamine scientific and historical phenomena. The researchfocuses on the learning outcomes and cognitive processing,particularly self-regulation, that are activated in aninstructional environment that requires students to engagehigh - order cognitive skills in the examination of dynamicphenomena.
A primary focus of the Systems Thinking and Curriculum
Innovation (STACI) Project is the examination of students'
cognitive processes and learning outcomes, and the strategies and
processes that lead to knowledge and skill acquisition. Cognitive
process analysis is the means by which the skills and processes
engendered in tasks and learning activities can be identified and
understood. Such analyses attempt to determine whether the same
kinds of skills are applicable across tasks or are specific to
domains and content areas (e.g., Glaser, 1984; Simon, 1976).
Processes have been identified that are thought to organize a
learner's cognition. These processes have been termed
Note. Scores represent cognitive engagement components:selectivity, connecting, planning, alertness, andmonitoring, follamxibytransformation and acquisitionprocesses composites. .1 = high. 0 = low.Each now in a cell represents one student profile.
Figure 2Design and response patterns on the Self-Regulated LearningIn:A.Lument fm- physics students
Male
HighAbility
Female
Male
aidAbility
Female
'chysics 1987-1988Systems then 1986-87 Traditional Chem 1986-87
War & Rev No W&R War & Rev No W&R
00011 -- 01Idi
11111 -- 11
00000
11111
-- 00R
-- 11SRL
11000 10
TF111111-- 11
SRL00000 -- 00
RSRL
11111 -- 11 11111 -- 11 11111 -- 11SRL SRL SRL
00011 -- 01 11111 -- 11 11111 -- 11RM SRL SRL
01111 -- 11SRL
01111 -- 11 00000 -- 00SRL R
10111 -- 11 00000 -- 00SRL R
00000 -- 00 00100 -- 00R R
11111 -- 11 11111 -- 11SRL SRL
Note. Scores represent cognitive engagenentccaconents:selectivity, connecting, planning, alertnes, andmonitoring, followed by transformation and acquisitionprocesses composites. 1 =high. 0 = law.Each row in a cell represents one student profile.
37
9
Figure 3
Distribution of cognitive engagement in physics and chemistry
Chemistry
TransformationProcesses
TransformationProcesses
High
High
Law
Acquisition ProcessesHigh Law
Self-Regalation
1032.3%
Task Focus
26.5%
Rescurcelianage-meet
516.1%
Recipience
14
45.2%
1548.4%
1651.7%
Acquisition ProcessesHigh Law
Self-Regulation
13
59.1%
Task Focus
14.5%
Resource Manage-ment
2
9.1%
Recipience
6
27.3%
1568.2%
731.8%
1238.8
1961.3%
31
14
63.6
8
36,4%
22
Note. Acquisition processes include alertness and monitoring.Transformation processes include selectivity, connecting,and planning.
38
40
Table 1Classification of cognitive engagement amcmchemistry students
Note. n = 31.Cs Bs = Systems chemistry, systems biology.Cs Br = Systems chemistry, traditional biology.Or Bs = Traditional chemistry, systems biology.0-213r = Traditional chemistry, traditional biology.
Table 2Classification of cast onent processes of cognitive engagementan chemistry students
Note. n = 31.CsBs = Systems chemistry, systems biology.CsBr = Systems chemistry, traditional biology.Cps = Traditional chemistry, systems biology.CIA = Traditional chemistry, traditional biology.
Note. n = 22.CsW&R = Systems chemistry, War and Revolution.Cs = Systems chemistry, no War and Revolution.01W&R = Traditional chemistry, War and Revolution.Or = Traditional chemistry, no War and Revolution.
42
44
....11MMEMI
Table 5Classification of cognitive engagment mong physics students,considering ability level
Exhibits LFIT IMPS DES LISTonly a Bier IMIT HST airspecificcxmponent
HMIT LFT HIS(has acquisition but notransformation skills)
Exhibits HFIW&R LFTS LASSall othercomponents
HFTSDS
LFSS
Note. H = high ability. L = low ability. M = male. F = female.SS = systems chemistry and biology.ST = systems chemistry, traditional biology.TS = traditional chemistry, systems biology.Tr = traditional chemistry and biology.T = traditional chemistry, no War and Revolution.S = systems chemitry, no War and Revolution.TW&R = chemistry, War and Revolution.
Appendix A
45
47
Class & Mods
Self-Regulation Questionnaire
Think back to when you were reading the problem and trying tofigure out what you were supposed to do. What were you thinkingabout?
Did you think about:a. the steps you would go OR b.
through or the extrainformation you might needto do the problem?
the very first thingyou would do to getstarted?
2. Did you considera. what the problem war OR b. how you would work out
asking you to do overall? the first part of theproblem?
3. Did you think about:a. other school work that
the problem remindedyou of?
4. Did you:a. keep track of sane of
the information inorder to remember itbetter?
OR whether other studentsin your group might behelpful to you insolving these problems?
OR b. r.*..;..d the information
without doing anythingspecial to make sureyou would remember it?
1
48
In caupleting the problem, you had to do several different kinds ofthings - first you had to read the description of the problem, thenyou had to figure out what you had to do to solve it, and so on.During these different parts of the task, which of the followingdid you do lirerLY?
5. Did you:a. plan how you would do OR b.
each part of the problemas you =re to it?
pay attention to whatothers were doing orsaying, to ideatabout how to do parts?
6. During various parts of the task, did you:a. oxsistently pay OR b. try to pay attention,
attention to the problem but kept losing yourand what you were doing? concentration?
7. Dida.
you:=pare the informationin this problem to sane-thing you, knew aboutalready?
OR b. see this information asnew and keep it prettymuch separate fromthings you knew already?
8. Fbr parts of the task did you:a. create a drawing or OR b. think about the infor-
other representation oration in just the wayto help you understarrl, it was presented to you?remember, or work with it?
2
49
9. When you were working on tha problem,a. decide that some OR b.
details given in theproblem were not importantfor solving it?
10: Did you find that you:a. sanetimes double-chec.load OR b.
to make sure you weredoing it right?
did you:consider every bit ofthe information asimportant?
more or less just wcaicedthrough the problemswithout needing todouble -check things?
11. While working on thz task, did you:a. pause to figure out the CS b. work through the task
next steps, you would need without stopping to planto take? your next moves?
12. Daring the oast, did you:a. think about whether you OP. b. just concentrate on
had a general understanding solving the problem?of things or not?
13. Mille working on the task, did you:a. focus on some parts or OR b. concentrate equally on
points more than others? all the information?
46
51
Physics Prcblem
A late passenger, sprinting at 8 misec, is 30 m away fran the
rear end of a train when it starts cut of the station with an
acoeleration of 1 Wsec2. Cm the passenger catch the train
if the platronn is long enough? (Note: This problem
requires soluticm of a quadratic equation. 03nn you explain
the significance of the tm.r values you get for the time?)
52
47
53
a
NameClass
Mercury in the EnvironmentNowouriber
Several decades ago, the people of Minamata,small coastal town on the southernmost islandof japan, witnessed some strange events. Birdswield suddenly drop from the sky, almost as ifsomeone had shot them, Cats were seen to spinaround and "dance" in frenzied convulsions,usually to their death. Then in 11180 physic:innsthere began to investigate a mysterious humanillne-asa disease thought to be possibly associ-ated with the "dancing cats" and aim that prob-ably had been present in the population for along lime. Person after person developed un-usual neurological symptoms. including theinability to walk or talk correctly.
After testing for and ruling out many possi-ble diseases, the baffled medical authorities,suspecting sin environmental cause, focused onthe biggest industry in this town, a chemicalplant 'that produced plastics and petrochemi-cals. Although the company vigorously deniedcharges of being responsible for this strange dis-
c ease, the company doctor secretly began to per-form his own tests by feeding waste materialproduced by the plant to laboratory cats. In Oc-tober of 1959, he discovered the culprit: Afteringesting wastes containing mercury, cat num-ber 400 underwent seizures and began to spinaround at great speed, crashing into laboratorywalls. The doctor deduced that mercury poison-ing was affecting members of the population,animal and human, exposed to water contami-nated with wastes from this chemical plant.
Mercury, element number 80 in the periodictable, is a silver- white, heavy metal. It is one ofonly two elements that are liquid under normalconditions (the other is bromine). Historically.mercury, also known as quicksilver, lies beenassociated with neurological disorders in per-sons exposed to it over long periods of time. Inthe nineteenth century, this metal caused men-tal illness in halters, or hat makers, who used itto treat furs. in fad, The Mad Hatter In LewisCarroll's Mice's Adventures in Wonderland is afictional character based on the real victims ofmercury poisoning in that profession. This poi-soning can be caused by the inhalation of fumesproduced by the substance, making it an occu-pational health hazard for such workers as mer-cury miners. It can also result from the inges-tion of the metal. A serious public healthdisaster occurred in the southwestern UnitedStales during the late 1960s, when many huh-
victuals accidentally ate seeds that had beentreated with mercury-containing fungicide andthat were meant only for planting.
The victims of Minnmetn were poisnumi bymercury dumped into the water. But scientistswere confused by this at first. Mercury is not areactive metal. It is only slightly enluble inwater and does not react easily with ether sub-stances. Thus, it was long thoughtuntil thelate 1960s, in factthat mercury discarded intothe environment, especially into water, did notHeise much of n threat it heal,th hazard. Scion.lists considered it safe for industries to dumpmercury into bodies of water because they be-lieved the metal would simply settle clown tothe bottom and eventually be buried by layers ofsediment.
Then, in the 1900s, scientists in Swedenwere invcritignting the mercury levels in fishtaken from mercury-contaminated water. Theyobserved that the mercury found in the fish tis-sues differed from the innrganic, elementalform that had been dumped; instead, the mer-cury was present in an organic, and more toxic,form. called methylmercury. This "bintransfor-mation" was shown to be brought about by mi-croscopic life in the water. Microorganismspresent in lakes, rivers, and other bodies ofwater transformed insoluble, elemental mer-cury into the very soluble and hazardous sub-stance methylmercury. There is even sonic evi-dence to suggest that bacteria inhabiting theintestines of rats and humans also can performthis biotransformation.
This discovery changed the image of mer-cury as a relatively harmless waste product. Thesoluble methylmercury easily passes into thetissues of fish, and than into the brain, liver.and kidney tissues of higher-order organisms.including humans, that eat the fish.
Although case after case of this "disease ofthe dancing cats" was diagnosed, the chemicalplant officials at Minamata maintained te.J1 nomercury was emitted from their plant into thewater. They also believed that the evidencepointing to a natural formation of the hazardousmohylmercury would relieve them of any re-sponsibility for mercury poisoning anyway.The company doctor did not at first reveal hisfindings concerning the effects of mercury iiithe wastes from the chemical plant. 13111 hic
cork end that of scieut kis later showed that thecm:suslItt-Isttrt Ent elenr
Name
Mercury in the Environment (Continued)
chemical plant's waste did indeed contain lev-els of both mercury and methylmercurywhen itwas discarded into the water. Finally, in 1973, aJapanese court ruled that the company was neg-ligent in its actions, and ordered it to providelarge cash payments and living and medicalexpenses to the mercury poisoning victims,who totaled 1,401 by 1979.
Besides the emission of this metal in Indus-trialwastes, mercury contamination in the envi-ronment is also caused by the combustion offossil fuels, especially coal. A large amount ofmercury is released into the atmosphere eachyear by the burning of coal. Eventually it fallsback to the earth, adhering to other particles.Some of it is then washed by rainfall into bodiesof water. Scientists can only guess at how muchmercury falls into water in this way, and then athow much is converted to the hazardous meth-ylmercury form. Although they know that somebiotransformation of mercury does occur, itdoes not seem significant enough to be a healthhazard. Scientists do believe, however, that thesulfur and nitrogen oxides emitted by fossil fuelcombustion, which are implicated in the acidrain problem (see the Societal Issues essay,Acid Rain on page 27-5), somehow increase thisbiotransformation process. As bodies of waterbecome more acidic, the mercury levels in thefish there have been observed to increase.
Mercury is considered an "'immortal" waste.Being an element, it is nonbiodegradable, thatis, not broken down into less hazardous compo-nent parts by natural processes. Being an unre-active element, it is a)so not easily dispersed bynatural processes either. In one situation, theland surrounding a factory in Virginia had toxiclevels of mercury (used in the production ofchlorine there) some ten years after the plant
Class Dale __
had been closed down. The mercury had notbeen eliminated by natural processes duringthis time.
The disaster at Minemata and other mercurypoisonings have made it clear that correctivemeasures are necessary to protect Om humanpopulation from mercury. The government hastaken steps to reduce its levels in the environ-ment. In 1971.the U.S. Deimrtment of Agricul-ture banned many fungicides containing thismetal, and the use of mercury-containing drugsand paints has been greatly reduced. But theenvironmental problems created by past use ofmercury am difficult, and expensive, to remedy.It is not yet known what kinds of procedureswill he most effective for reversing mercurycontamination of the environment.
55
4nswer these questions based on your understanding of ale article.Mercury in the Environment. Refer to the-article as necessary. You mayuse sketches, graphs, or diagrams if they ;4/11 help you answer theQuestions. Make your answers as comoiete and clear as you can
What is (are) the major reason(s) that it took so long to realize thatpeople and animals can be poisoned by mercury In the environment?
2. What were some important discoveries that helped scientistsunderstand mercury poisoning.
3 How is tne amount of sulfii in fossil fuel (coal and oil) related tomethylmercury iT the environment
4. a) if, starting today, no more mercury were released as waste ;nto theenvironment, what would you hope a graph of the threat of mercury topeople and animals might look. like? (Try to make the time unitsreasonable.)
b.) How would you go aoout f!rding out if your "ncped for" graol-: isrealistic or possible?
5. a.) How could the1973 Japarese court decision affect environmentalmercury?
b.) What could be some negative consecuences of that court decision?
6. Oil spills and certain industral wastes kill large amounts ofmicroscopic life in the water On the other hand, pollution from sewagetreatment plants increase microscopic life. If you were an environmentalchemist trying to clean up mercury in the environment, which type ofpollution would your study first. Explain your choice.
7 Since mercury is an :element and therefore impossitIle to destroy, whatare the aims or goals of those agenc;es that are trying to reduce tne threatof mercury in tne environment.