Abstract
This study conducts a textbook analysis in the frame of the following working hypothesis: The transformation of scientific knowledge into school knowledge is expected to reproduce the problems encountered with the scientific knowledge itself or generate additional problems, which may both induce misconceptions in textbook users. Specifically, we describe four epistemological problems associated with how the concept of “ecosystem” is elaborated within ecological science and we examine how each problem is reproduced in the biology textbook utilized by Greek students in the 12th grade and the resulting teacher and student misunderstandings that may occur. Our research demonstrates that the authors of the textbook address these problems by appealing simultaneously to holistic and reductionist ideas. This results in a meaningless and confused depiction of “ecosystem” and may provoke many serious misconceptions on the part of textbook users, for example, that an ecosystem is a system that can be applied to every set of interrelated ecological objects irrespective of the organizational level to which these entities belong or how these entities are related to each other. The implications of these phenomena for science education research are discussed from a perspective that stresses the role of background assumptions in the understanding of declarative knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The interference of subjectivity with scientific judgment is not a problem for instrumentalism. The ecosystem is considered a valid unit of analysis because it is useful to the researcher: it helps researchers elaborate field data, explains observations and related empirical phenomena, and provides satisfactory solutions to problems arising from the practice of environmental management.
When we refer to systems ecology, we focus on the work of the Odum brothers because the development of systems ecology as a scientific field within ecology is indebted to their insights. The Odums, especially Howard Odum, were the leading representatives of systems ecology during its rise in the 1950s and 1960s. After its fall in the 1970s, systems ecology continued to be developed at a handful of institutions, notably the University of Georgia and the University of Florida, the home bases of Eugene and Howard Odum, respectively.
Howard Odum was the man who thoroughly elaborated the term ecosystem and made it the cornerstone of the systems ecology field (Golley 1993).
The term “ideal” means “prior to the formation of the ecosystem” or “apriori” or “without a materialistic counterpart.”
Therefore, teachers and students may apply the ecosystem to a set of two organisms, a set of two populations, a set consisting of an organism and an abiotic factor, etc.
The teleological criterion did not prove robust for many reasons. For example, succession theory was refuted by empirical data, a matter that pushed succession theory to the outskirts of ecosystem theory. Moreover, during its development, systems ecology, like other biological disciplines, dissociated itself from Lamarckian conceptual residues associated with teleology and organicism.
The resultant properties can be determined exclusively by the additional-analysis method, which considers the whole as equal to the sum of its parts. For example, the total production of a lake is a resultant property produced by the algebraic sum of estimated production at each trophic level.
The Odums’ treatment of emergence was not the last attempt in the field of systems ecology. Modern system approaches to ecosystems (Fath and Patten 1999) have shifted the emphasis from parts to processes and have achieved descriptions of ecosystem properties that may be considered truly emergent. Properties such as the dominance of indirect effects, network amplification, network homogenization, and network synergism are inextricably linked to the issue of organization and describe how the ecosystem as a structural whole affects or constrains the behavior of its component parts. Network synergism, for example, describes how system-wide processes create a structural pattern with beneficial effects on the interactions among ecosystem components, while network homogenization indicates that the action of a well-connected ecosystem makes the matter-energy flow distribution more uniform. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, this rather successful treatment of emergence has not been incorporated in biology science textbooks.
In their own words:
“In most cases, the criterion for the threat to the environment posed by a pollutant is not mainly its quality but the rate at which it is added in an ecosystem. For this reason, it is possible for a harmless substance with low concentration to be rendered threatening if the rate of its insertion in the ecosystem is higher than the rate of its removal or its neutralization by the special balance restoration mechanisms that all ecosystems possess. Accordingly, it is possible for a toxic substance to be unable to bring about severe environmental effects if it is removed or inactivated in a higher rate than it is inserted in the ecosystem.”
References
Adamantiadou, S., Georgatou, M., Papitzakis, C., Lakka, L., Notaras, D., Florentin, N., Chatzigeorgiou, G., & Chatzikonti, O. (2013). Biology. Athens: Institute of Computer Technology and Publications ‘Diofantos’.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
Baltas, A. (2007). Background ‘assumptions’ and the grammar of conceptual change: rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakousi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63–79). Oxford: Elsevier.
Baltas, A. (1986). Ideological “ assumptions” in physics: social determinations of internal structures. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 130–151.
Baltas, A. (1991). On some structural aspects of physical problems. Synthese, 89(2), 299–320.
Barker, S., & Slingsby, D. (1998). From nature tablet to niche: curriculum progression in ecological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 479–486.
Bergandi, D. (1995). “Reductionist holism”: an oxymoron or a philosophical chimera of E.P. Odum’s systems ecology? Ludus Vitalis, 3(5), 145–180.
Bergandi, D., & Blandin, P. (1998). Holism vs. reductionism: do ecosystem ecology and landscape ecology clarify the debate? Acta Biotheoretica, 46, 185–206.
Bergandi, D. (2000). Eco-cybernetics: the ecology and cybernetics of missing emergences. Kybernetes, 29(7/8), 928–942.
Bowers, C. (2001). How language limits our understanding of environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 141–151.
Caravita, S., Valente, A., Pace, P., Valanides, N., Khalil, I., Berthou, G., Kozan-Naumescu, A., & Clement, P. (2008). Construction and validation of textbook analysis grids for ecology and environmental education. Science Education International, 19, 97–116.
Clements, F. E. (1905). Research methods in ecology. Lincoln, NE: University Printing Co.
Clements, F. E. (1916). Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington (C.I.W. Publication no. 242).
Cherrett, J. M. (1989). Key concepts: the results of a survey of members’ opinions. In J. M. Cherrett (Ed.), Ecological concepts: the contribution of ecology to an understanding of the natural world (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.
Cho, H., Kahle, J., & Nordland, F. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707–719.
Clifford, P. (2002). The pressure-flow hypothesis of phloem transport: misconceptions in the A-level textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 110–112.
Çobanoglu, E. O., Sahin, B., & Karakaya, C. (2009). Examination of the biology textbook for 10th grades in high school education and the ideas of the pre-service teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2504–2512.
de Laplante, K., & Picasso, V. (2011). The biodiversity-ecosystem function debate in ecology. In K. de Laplante, B. Brown, K. Peacock (Eds.), Philosophy of ecology handbook (pp. 169–200). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Dikmenli, M., & Çardak, O. (2004). A study on misconceptions in the 9th grade high school biology textbooks. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17, 130–141.
Dikmenli, M., Çardak, O., & Oztas, F. (2009). Conceptual problems in biology-related topics in primary science and technology textbooks in Turkey. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 429–440.
Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.
Dreyfus, A., Wals, A., & Van Weelie, D. (1999). Biodiversity as a postmodern theme for environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 155–176.
El-Hani, C. N., & Emmeche, C. (2000). On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology: property emergence, supervenience, and downward causation. Theory in Biosciences, 119(3–4), 234–275.
Emmecke, C., Koppe, S., & Stjernfelt, F. (1997). Explaining emergence: toward an ontology of levels. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 28, 83–119.
Engelberg, J., & Boyarsky, L. (1979). The noncybernetic nature of ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 114, 317–324.
Fath, B. D., & Patten, B. C. (1999). Review of the foundations of network environ analysis. Ecosystems, 2, 167–179.
Gibson, D. J. (1996). Textbook misconceptions: the climax concept of succession. The American Biology Teacher, 58(3), 135–140.
Golley, F. B. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. More than the sum of the parts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Golley, F. B. (2000). Ecosystem structure. In: S. Jørgensen, & F. Muller (Εds.), Handbook of ecosystem theories and management, (pp 21–32). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Hagen, J. (1989). Research perspectives and the anomalous status of modern ecology. Biology & Philosophy, 4, 433–455.
Hammond, D. (1997). Ecology and ideology in the general systems community. Environment and History, 3(2), 197–207.
Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html
Hershey, D. R. (2005). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from actionbioscience.org. hhtp://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey3.html
Hovardas, T. (2012). A critical reading of ecocentrism and its meta-scientific use of ecology: instrumental versus emancipatory approaches in environmental education and ecology education. Science & Education, 22(6), 1467–1483.
Jax, K. (1998). Holocene and ecosystem—on the origin and historical consequences of two concepts. Journal of the History of Biology, 31, 113–142.
Jax, K. (2007). Can we define ecosystems? On the confusion between definition and description of ecological concepts. Acta Biotheoretica, 55, 341–355.
Jørgensen, S. E., Patten, B. C., & Straškraba, M. (1999). Ecosystems emerging: 3. Openness. Ecological Modelling, 117(1), 41–64.
Kavsut, G. (2010). Investigation of science and technology textbook in terms of the factors that may lead to misconceptions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2088–2091.
Khine, S. M. (2013). Critical analysis of science textbooks. Evaluating instructional effectiveness. Netherlands: Springer.
King, C. J. H. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565–601.
Korfiatis, K. J. (2005). Environmental education and the science of ecology: exploration of an uneasy relationship. Environmental Education Research, 11, 235–248.
Korfiatis, K. J., & Stamou, G. P. (1994). Emergence of new fields in ecology: the case of life history studies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 16, 97–116.
Kwa, C. (1987). Representations of nature mediating between ecology and science policy: the case of the International Biological Programme. Social Studies of Science, 17(3), 413–442.
Kwa, C. (1989). Mimicking nature: the development of systems ecology in the United States, 1950–1975. Doctoral dissertation. Free University of Amsterdam.
Kwa, C. (2002). Romantic and baroque conceptions of complex wholes in the sciences. In J. Law & A. Mol (Eds.), Complexities: social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 23–52). Durham: Duke University Press.
Lebrun, J., Lenoir, Y., Laforest, M., Larose, F., Roy, G., Spallanzani, C., & Pearson, M. (2002). Past and current trends in the analysis of textbooks in a Quebec context. Curriculum Inquiry, 32, 51–83.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman, N., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: a pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285–302.
Lefkaditou, A., & Stamou, G. (2006). Holism and reductionism in ecology: a trivial dichotomy and Levins’ non-trivial account. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28, 313–336.
Lefkaditou, A. (2012). Is ecology a holistic science, after all? In G. P. Stamou (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp.46–66). Oak Park: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Lefkaditou A, Korfiatis K, & Hovardas T (2014) Contextualising the teaching and learning of ecology: historical and philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 523–550). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lemoni, R., Lefkaditou, A., Stamou, A. G., Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. P. (2013). Views of nature and the human-nature relations: an analysis of the visual syntax of pictures about the environment in Greek primary school textbooks—diachronic considerations. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 117–140.
Levins, R. (1998). Dialectics and systems theory. Science & Society, 62, 375–399.
Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1980). Dialectics and reductionism ecology. Synthese, 43, 47–78.
Loehle, C., & Pechmann, J. H. (1988). Evolution: the missing ingredient in systems ecology. American Naturalist, 884–899.
Looijen, R. (1998). Holism and reductionism in biology and ecology. The mutual dependence of higher and lower level research programmes. Doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen.
Magntorn, O., & Helldén, G. (2007). Reading new environments: students’ ability to generalise their understanding between different ecosystems. International Journal of Science Education, 29(1), 67–100.
Mahmood, A., Nudrat, S., & Asdaque, M. M. (2011). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers: a comparative analysis of gender, urban and rural schools. Asian Social Science, 7, 203–208.
Mansson, B., & McGlade, J. (1993). Ecology, thermodynamics and H.T. Odum’s conjectures. Oecologia, 93, 582–596.
Marshal, A. (2002). The unity of nature. Wholeness and disintegration in ecology and science. London: Imperial College Press.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). History, philosophy, and science teaching: a useful alliance. New York: Routledge.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. The nature of science in science education, 5, 3–39.
McIntosh, R. (1985). The background of ecology: concept and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morrone, M., Mancl, K., & Carr, K. (2001). Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 33–42.
Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1994). Investigating in the school science laboratory: conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248.
Nikisianis, N., & Stamou, G. P. (2010). Quantifying nature: ideological representations in the concept of diversity. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33(3), 365–388.
Nikisianis N, & Stamou G P (2012) The ideology of diversity. In Stamou, G.P. (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp.93–121). Oak Park: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Odom, A. L. (1993). Action potentials and biology textbooks: accurate, misconceptions or avoidance? The American Biology Teacher, 55(8), 468–472.
Palladino, P. (1991). Defining ecology: ecological theories, mathematical models, and applied biology in the 1960s and 1970s. Journal of the History of Biology, 24(2), 223–243.
Patten, B., & Odum, H. (1981). The cybernetic nature of ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 118, 886–895.
Perrenoud, P. (1984). La fabrication de l’excellence scolaire. Geneve: Droz.
Reiners, W. (1986). Complementary models for ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 127, 59–73.
Sagoff, M. (2003). The plaza and the pendulum: two concepts of ecological science. Biology and Philosophy, 18(4), 529–552.
Salt, G. (1979). A comment on the use of the term emergent properties. The American Naturalist, 113, 145–148.
Shepardson, D., & Pizzini, E. (1991). Questioning levels of junior high school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science Education, 75, 673–682.
Schizas, D. (2012). Systems ecology reloaded: a critical assessment focusing on the relations between science and ideology. In G. P. Stamou (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp.67–92). Oak Park: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Schizas, D. G., & Stamou, G. P. (2005). Network rethinking of nature and society. Ludus Vitalis, 24, 55–82.
Schizas, D. G., & Stamou, G. P. (2006). The concept of life and its significance in the construction of the new ecosystem ecology of bernard patten, Sven Jørgensen and Milan Straškraba. History and philosophy of the life sciences, 28, 49–65.
Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. (2007). What ecosystems really are—physicochemical or biological entities? Ecological Modelling, 200, 178–182.
Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. (2010). Beyond identity crisis: the challenge of recontextualizing ecosystem delimitation. Ecological Modelling, 221, 1630–1635.
Schizas, D., Katrana, E., & Stamou, G. P. (2013). Introducing network analysis into science education: methodological research examining secondary school students’ understanding of “decomposition”. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(1), 175–198.
Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 8(4), 706–733.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., & McCoy, E. D. (1993). Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simberloff, D. (1980). A succession of paradigms in ecology: essentialism to materialism and probabilism. Synthese, 43(1), 3–39.
Stamou, A. G., Lefkaditou, A., Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. P. (2009). The discourse of environmental information: representations of nature and forms of rhetoric in the information centre of a Greek reserve. Science Communication, 31, 187–214.
Stamou, G. P. (2012). Critical realism and ecological studies. In G. P. Stamou (Ed.), Populations, biocommunities, ecosystems: a review of controversies in ecological thinking (pp. 3–27). Oak Park: Bentham Science.
Storey, R. D. (1992). Textbook errors and misconceptions in biology: cell physiology. The American Biology Teacher, 54(4), 200–203.
Swanepoel, S. (2010). The assessment of the quality of science education textbooks: conceptual framework and instruments for analysis. Doctoral dissertation. University of South Africa.
Tansley, A. (1920). The classification of vegetation and the concept of development. Journal of Ecology, 8, 118–149.
Tansley, A. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284–307.
Taylor, P. J. (1988). Technocratic optimism, HT Odum, and the partial transformation of ecological metaphor after World War II. Journal of the History of Biology, 21(2), 213–244.
Taylor, P. (2005). Unruly complexity: ecology, interpretation and engagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, P. (1992). Community. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 52–60). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Trepl, L., & Voigt, A. (2011). The classical holism-reductionism debate in ecology. Ecology Revisited, 45–83.
Van der Steen, W. (1993). A practical philosophy for the life sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Van Weelie, D., & Wals, A. (2002). Making biodiversity meaningful through environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1143–1156.
Villaverde, L. (2003). Secondary schools. A reference handbook (contemporary education issues). Santa Barbara: Abc-Clio Inc.
Whittaker, R. H. (1948). A vegetation analysis of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois
Worster, D. (1990). The ecology of order and chaos. Environmental History Review, 14, 1–18.
Worster, D. (1993). The wealth of nature: environmental history and the ecological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s economy. A history of ecological ideas. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, C., & Cuddington, K. (2007). Ambiguous, circular and polysemous: students’ definitions of the “balance of nature” metaphor. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 393–406.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schizas, D., Papatheodorou, E. & Stamou, G. Transforming “Ecosystem” from a Scientific Concept into a Teachable Topic: Philosophy and History of Ecology Informs Science Textbook Analysis. Res Sci Educ 48, 267–300 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9568-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9568-0