AMBIO

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 154–162 | Cite as

Ecological literacy and beyond: Problem-based learning for future professionals

  • Thomas M. Lewinsohn
  • José Luiz Attayde
  • Carlos Roberto Fonseca
  • Gislene Ganade
  • Leonardo Ré Jorge
  • Johannes Kollmann
  • Gerhard E. Overbeck
  • Paulo Inácio Prado
  • Valério D. Pillar
  • Daniela Popp
  • Pedro L. B. da Rocha
  • Wesley Rodrigues Silva
  • Annette Spiekermann
  • Wolfgang W. Weisser
Perspective

Abstract

Ecological science contributes to solving a broad range of environmental problems. However, lack of ecological literacy in practice often limits application of this knowledge. In this paper, we highlight a critical but often overlooked demand on ecological literacy: to enable professionals of various careers to apply scientific knowledge when faced with environmental problems. Current university courses on ecology often fail to persuade students that ecological science provides important tools for environmental problem solving. We propose problem-based learning to improve the understanding of ecological science and its usefulness for real-world environmental issues that professionals in careers as diverse as engineering, public health, architecture, social sciences, or management will address. Courses should set clear learning objectives for cognitive skills they expect students to acquire. Thus, professionals in different fields will be enabled to improve environmental decision-making processes and to participate effectively in multidisciplinary work groups charged with tackling environmental issues.

Keywords

Problem-based learning Teaching ecology Conceptual underpinnings Interdisciplinary work 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was produced as part of a workshop on teaching methods in ecology that was held in Freising, Germany, in August 2013. The workshop was funded by grant 54417975 of the German Academic Research Council (DAAD) “TUMBRA: A network for using ecological analysis to deepen our understanding of the relationship between biodiversity and sustainable land use” to the Technische Universität München and its partner universities UFRGS Porto Alegre, UFRN Natal and UNICAMP Campinas in Brazil. TML, VDP, PIP, GG and CRF received support from CNPq, Brazil.

References

  1. Alstad, D. 2007. Populus: Simulations of population biology. Version 5.5. Retrieved 1 March, 2014, from http://www.cbs.umn.edu/populus.
  2. Baylis, M., and P. Stevenson. 1998. Trypanosomiasis and tsetse control with insecticidal pour-ons—Fact and fiction? Parasitology Today 14: 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., and P. Tang. 2011. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  5. Cachelin, A., R. Norvell, and A. Darling. 2010. Language fouls in teaching ecology: Why traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conservation Biology 24: 669–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardelús, C., and G. Middendorf. 2013. Ecological literacy: The educational foundation necessary for informed public decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 330–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cid, C.R., and R.V. Pouyat. 2013. Making ecology relevant to decision making: The human-cnetered, place-based approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 447–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dochy, F., M. Segers, P. Van der Bossche, and D. Gijbels. 2003. Effects of problem-based learning: A metaanalysis. Learning and Instruction 13: 533–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dransfield, R.D., B.G. Williams, and R. Brightwell. 1991. Control of tsetse flies and trypanosomiasis: Myth or reality? Parasitology Today 7: 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dresner, M. 2008. Using research projects and qualitative conceptual modeling to increase novice scientists’ understanding of ecological complexity. Ecological Complexity 5: 216–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 16: 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, B.D., C.M. Epler, P. Mokri, et al. 2013. The effects of a collaborative problem-based learning experience on students’ motivation in engineering capstone courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1344.Google Scholar
  13. Jordan, R., F. Singer, J. Vaughan, and A. Berkowitz. 2009. What should every citizen know about ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ju, E.J., and J.G. Kim. 2011. Using soil seed banks for ecological education in primary school. Journal of Biological Education 45: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiker, G.A., T.S. Bridges, A. Varghese, P.T. Seager, and I. Linkov. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King, A. 1993. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching 41: 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krathwohl, D.R. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41: 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lage, M.T., G.J. Platt, and M. Treglia. 2000. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education 31: 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levin, S.A. 2000. Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
  20. Long, T.M., J.T. Dauer, K.M. Kostelnik, J.L. Momsen, S.A. Wyse, E.B. Speth, and D. Ebert-May. 2014. Fostering ecoliteracy through model-based instruction. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 138–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson, L.B. Brubaker, S.R. Carpenter, M.M. Holland, S.P. Hubbell, S.A. Levin, J.A. MacMahon, et al. 1991. The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An ecological research agenda. Ecology 72: 371–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magntorn, O., and G. Helldén. 2007. Reading nature from a ‘bottom-up’ perspective. Journal of Biological Education 41: 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McBride, B.B., C.A. Brewer, A.R. Berkowitz, and W.T. Borrie. 2013. Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get there. Ecosphere 4: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meir, E. 2001. Ecobeaker.0: Laboratory guide and user manual. Ithaca: BeakerWare.Google Scholar
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—Synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Peters, R.H. 1991. A critique for ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pickett, S.T.A., J. Kolasa, and C.G. Jones. 2007. Ecological understanding: The nature of theory and the theory of nature. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pool, R.F., G.D. Turner, and S.A. Bottger. 2013. Ecology content in introductory biology courses: a comparative analysis. The American Biology Teacher 75: 544–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roux, D.J., K.H. Rogers, H.C. Biggs, P.J. Ashton and A. Sergeant. 2006. Bridging the science—management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1): 4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/.
  30. Savery, J.R. 2006. Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1002.Google Scholar
  31. Slobodkin, L.B. 2003. A citizen’s guide to ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Smetanaa, L.K., and R. Bell. 2012. Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education 34: 1337–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strayer, J.F. 2012. How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research 15: 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tapio, P., and R. Willamo. 2008. Developing interdisciplinary environmental frameworks. AMBIO 37: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilensky, U., and K. Reisman. 2006. Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction 24: 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Lewinsohn
    • 1
  • José Luiz Attayde
    • 2
  • Carlos Roberto Fonseca
    • 2
  • Gislene Ganade
    • 2
  • Leonardo Ré Jorge
    • 1
  • Johannes Kollmann
    • 3
  • Gerhard E. Overbeck
    • 4
  • Paulo Inácio Prado
    • 5
  • Valério D. Pillar
    • 6
  • Daniela Popp
    • 7
  • Pedro L. B. da Rocha
    • 8
  • Wesley Rodrigues Silva
    • 1
  • Annette Spiekermann
    • 7
  • Wolfgang W. Weisser
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Ecologia, Centro de BiociênciasUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteNatalBrazil
  3. 3.Department for Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Center for Food and Life Sciences WeihenstephanTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  4. 4.Departamento de BotânicaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  5. 5.Departamento de Ecologia - Instituto de BiociênciasUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  6. 6.Departamento de EcologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  7. 7.ProLehre, Department for Teaching and Learning in Higher EducationTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  8. 8.Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal da BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations