water systems understandings: a framework for designing ... › fulltext › ed600988.pdf · water...

Overview

Water systems understandings:a framework for designinginstruction and considering whatlearners know about waterTroy D. Sadler,* Hai Nguyen and Deanna Lankford

Water is critical to the existence of Earth in its current form; therefore, it standsto reason that a student’s science education experiences ought to support thedevelopment of increasingly sophisticated ideas about water in socio-ecologicalsystems. Despite the significance of water, it has tended not to receive system-atic treatment in the science curriculum. A framework is advanced to help edu-cators and curriculum developers conceptualize water systems in the sciencecurriculum. The framework is composed of physical dimensions of water sys-tems and aspects of water systems understandings. This framework can beused to plan for curriculum, instruction, and assessment; it can also be used toorganize a review of existing research on student ideas about water and associ-ated misconceptions. Misconceptions that have been documented regarding thevarious physical dimensions of water systems (surface water, groundwater,atmospheric water, water in biotic systems, and water in engineered systems)are discussed. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

How to cite this article:WIREs Water 2016. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1178

INTRODUCTION

Water is critical to human existence, and ques-tions associated with access to and quality of

water pose some of the major challenges facing soci-ety in the 21st century. Important issues such asweather and climate cannot be adequately under-stood or explained without a basic scientific under-standing of the water cycle and the ability of waterto transmit heat.1 Therefore, understanding thedynamic nature of water systems is becoming increas-ingly important as many nations experience waterscarcity resulting from multiple factors includingdrought and pollution with the potential to rapidlydegrade both surface and groundwater stores.2 It

stands to reason that promoting students’ under-standings of water should be a specific focus of edu-cation. In this overview article, we consider howwater, as a curricular topic, is featured in K-12 edu-cation and present a framework for conceptualizingwhat it means to understand the science of water.The Understandings of Water Systems (UWS) frame-work can be conceptualized as a matrix composed ofphysical dimensions of water systems and aspects ofwater systems understandings. The physical dimen-sions of water systems describe where water (andsubstances in water) exists. They comprise surfacewater, groundwater, atmospheric water, water inbiotic systems, and water in engineered systems. Inreferring to aspects of water systems understandings,we highlight varying facets of student thinking aboutwater systems such as processes and mechanisms,energy, scale, representations, and dependency andhuman agency. We discuss ways in which the frame-work might be used for designing curriculum andassessments related to water. Finally, we use the

*Correspondence to: [email protected]

College of Education, University of Missouri, Columbia,MO, USA

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of inter-est for this article.

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

framework to organize a review of research from thefield of science education that explores learners’ ideasand misconceptions about water.

WATER IN THE CURRICULUM

Water has potential to serve as an interdisciplinarytheme for multiple areas of the curriculum, but wateras a curricular topic tends to be addressed most fre-quently in science classes. Despite (or perhapsbecause of ) the ubiquity of water and the significanceof water in an enormous range of physical, chemical,biological, and environmental processes, water tendsnot to be featured in a systematic way across the sci-ence curriculum. Instead, water shows up acrossschool science rather idiosyncratically.3 For instance,the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)4 ele-mentary performance expectations (K-LS1-1; 2-LS2-1; 4-ESS2-1) focus on water as a requirement for lifeor on water as a cause of erosion.4 Middle schoolNGSS performance expectations (MS-ESS2-4; MS-ESS2-5) are somewhat vague and only address waterspecifically in terms of the cycling of water throughEarth systems driven by energy from the sun or inter-actions between air masses resulting in variations inEarth’s weather.4 NGSS high school performancestandards are very broad and address water indi-rectly within the context of photosynthesis, climate,Earth systems, and management of natural resources(HS-LS1-5; HS-ESS2-4; HS-ESS3-5; HS-ESS3-6; HS-ESS3-3). Gross et al.5 note that the NGSS oftenmakes content, critical for developing deeper under-standing of Earth’s systems, implicit within the stan-dards and the role of water in biotic and abioticsystems within the environment is only vaguelyaddressed with limited focus on recognizing patterns.

The most prominent treatment of water in theK-12 curriculum is the presentation of the watercycle. Students in elementary school, middle schoolscience classes, and high school Earth science and/orphysical science classes often learn about the watercycle. These presentations highlight processes thatdrive phase changes as water moves through environ-mental systems. As such, the movement of surfacewater into the atmosphere through evaporation; thetransition of gaseous water to liquid water throughcondensation; and the return of water from theatmosphere to the surface system through precipita-tion tend to receive the most prominent attention.6

To that end, a study of junior high students’ percep-tion of the water cycle indicated that students pos-sessed knowledge of the role of water in bioticprocesses (e.g., photosynthesis, cellular respiration)

but lacked an understanding of the dynamic natureof the water cycle and the infiltration of surfacewater into the Earth to become groundwater. School-based presentations of the water cycle devote far lessattention to other dimensions of water in ecologicalsystems such as transpiration, groundwater, freezingand thawing, and movement of water beyond evapo-ration and precipitation.7 While it is true that mostelementary and middle school aged students areexposed to a basic model of water cycling throughthe environment, these students may not have oppor-tunities to think more deeply and broadly about themultidimensional nature of water in environmentalsystems and the dependence of human communitieson water.

Beyond the water cycle, ideas about waterlargely disconnected within the science curricula.3 Inearly grades, water is often used to explore the ideaof phase changes and in investigations of buoyancyand density. In both of these cases, water serves as aprimary example of the underlying processes or prin-ciples. In other words, the instructional focus is onstudent understanding of density (or the fact thatsubstances can change states) as opposed to anythingparticular about water. In physical science and chem-istry classes, students are often encouraged to thinkabout water as they make sense of ideas such as mix-tures, solutions, and suspensions, but here again,instructional foci tend to be on underlying issues ofsolubility and less on water itself. In high school biol-ogy, osmosis is a standard topic, but treatment of thistopic tends to be taught within the context of cellstructure and function and not connected to abroader systems orientation. In contrast, some chem-istry courses encourage deeper explorations of thechemistry of water and ways in which the uniqueproperties of water enable life and shape the Earth.

Curricula are typically organized around scopeand sequence charts which provide learning objec-tives to be mastered for each grade level, however,these objectives are typically discrete and may not beconnected to one another in a meaningful way forstudents.8 An alternative to this disconnectedapproach to teaching water science would be anapproach that emphasizes the role and positioning ofwater in socio-ecological systems. The EnvironmentalLiteracy group at Michigan State University (http://envlit.educ.msu.edu/) advanced this idea of concep-tualizing water in socio-ecological systems as a partof their work to build an empirical model of howlearners develop increasingly sophisticated ideasabout the science of water.3 This model, formallyknown as a ‘learning progression’ describes how lear-ners’ ideas about water change over time in

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

http://envlit.educ.msu.edu/

http://envlit.educ.msu.edu/

coordination with instruction.9 One end of the pro-gression is characterized by the intuitive ideas thatstudents often hold when they enter school. Theother end of the progression can be described as theideas and practices that scientists use in thinkingabout water systems. The idea behind a learning pro-gression is that it can help educators understand thetrajectories that learners follow as they move fromnaïve interpretations of the world toward sophisti-cated understandings consistent with the goals of sci-ence education.

The Environmental Literacy group’s water sys-tems learning progression lays out four progresslevels. At the lowest level (force dynamic), students’accounts of water tend to highlight the role of peoplein moving and using water. At the second level, stu-dents continue to emphasize the role of actors in themovement of water but begin to incorporate mechan-isms and an awareness of the physical world. Thethird level is characterized by partial accounts of thekinds of water science ideas that are featured inschool science. So, students begin describing proper-ties of water and parts of the water cycle, but theirdescriptions tend to be incomplete and not entirelyaccurate. The fourth and highest level of the progres-sion involves model-based accounts of the science ofwater. At this level, learners can conceptualize waterand related processes at multiple scales (from molec-ular to global) in multiple places (ground, surface,atmosphere, and in human-engineered systems). Thewater systems learning progression suggests five ele-ments of student accounts of water, and these ele-ments are represented in each of the four successivelevels. These elements are (1) structures and systems,(2) scale, (3) scientific principles, (4) representations,and (5) dependency and human agency.

A FRAMEWORK FORUNDERSTANDINGS OF WATERSYSTEMS

Our own work in the area of water systems educa-tion relates to a project in which we are interested insupporting middle school students’ learning of waterin socio-ecological systems. The conceptual toolsdeveloped by the Environmental Literacy groupincluding the water systems learning progressionwere instrumental in our efforts to conceptualize theoverall project. However, when specifying targetedlearning objectives, the learning progression coveredtoo much conceptual ground with too few markersof progress. In other words, the grain size of thelearning progression was too big for informing

specific curricular design decisions. (It should benoted that providing this level of guidance was notthe intent of the Environmental Literacy group’swork.) To address this gap and inform our designwork, we developed a framework to account for therange of ideas necessary for understanding watersystems.

Water in socio-ecological systems subsumesmany ideas, relationships, and processes; therefore, aframework that can potentially inform curriculardecisions can help to highlight more manageable(and understandable) units of the overarching system.We have chosen to create these more manageableunits by conceptualizing the physical dimensions ofwater systems and aspects of water systems under-standings. The physical dimensions of water systemsdescribe where water (and substances in water)exists. They comprise surface water, groundwater,atmospheric water, water in biotic systems, andwater in engineered systems. There are importantconnections among these dimensions; in fact, some ofthe most interesting parts of the system are those inwhich water is moving through one dimension toanother.

In highlighting aspects of water systems under-standings, we create an organizational scheme, basedon the learning progression from Gunckel et al.3 thataccounts for varying facets of student thinking aboutwater systems. These aspects are necessarily interde-pendent but the disaggregation makes it possible tomore effectively showcase what we want students toknow and learn about water. The aspects of watersystems understandings include: (1) processes andmechanisms, (2) energy, (3) scale, (4) representations,and (5) dependency and human agency. The aspectsof water systems understandings cut across thedimensions of water systems; therefore, these twoorganizational schemes can be represented in amatrix. In framing this two-dimensional matrix, weare suggesting that accounting for understandings ofand thinking about water systems can be character-ized through the consideration of the various sub-systems in which water is located and moves(i.e., physical dimensions of water systems) in con-junction with facets of student thinking about watersystems (i.e., aspects of water systems understand-ings). We use this matrix as a primary representationof the UWS framework.

As suggested above, we initially explored thelearning progression categories proposed by theMichigan State Environmental Literacy group.3

Operationalizing learning goals for curriculum devel-opment presented related, but different challengesthan establishing and representing a learning

WIREs Water Water systems understandings


progression. Like our work, the learning progressionutilized a two-dimensional matrix of water systemelements and levels of understanding. Our goal wasnot to characterize intermediate points of under-standing, but rather, to offer a more detailedaccounting and representation of target understand-ings across the topic of water systems. Therefore, weopted not to focus on levels of performance or under-standing. This allowed us to discretize some dimen-sions of water systems embedded within some of thelearning progression categories. For example, thelearning progression offered ‘structures and systems’as a progression category; we were able to take muchof what was captured in ‘structure and systems’ andrepresent (and further detail) these ideas across multi-ple groupings within the physical dimensions ofwater systems. We also decided to highlight processesand mechanisms and energy as discrete aspects ofwater understandings; whereas, the learning progres-sion combines these ideas within a single ‘scientificprinciple’ category. Given the significance of the ideasin these groupings, we reasoned that our moredetailed approach was warranted. There is a greaterdegree of consistency between the UWS matrix andthe learning progression categories in the representa-tion of the other three aspects of water systems ofunderstandings: scale, representations, and depend-ency and human agency.

Table 1 presents the UWS matrix along withsample learning goals that correspond to each cell ofthe matrix. For example, the cell in the upper leftcorner of the matrix (labeled 1-S) corresponds to pro-cesses and mechanisms, an aspect of water systemsunderstandings that affect surface water, a physicaldimension of water. Learning objectives associatedwith this cell include the following: students shouldbe able to explain the relationship between gravityand water movement through a watershed; studentsshould be able to predict the spread of a soluble pol-lutant introduced in a river; and students should beable to explain processes that may affect the waterlevel of a lake. This list of objectives is by no meanscomprehensive, but it provides a sample of howobjectives might be organized within this matrix. Forthe sake of space, the table offers just one objectivefor each cell as a means of demonstrating how differ-ent ideas and competencies can be represented by theframework.

The UWS framework partitions physical dimen-sions and aspects of understandings as an organiza-tional device, but, of course, there are importantconnections that span the partitions in multiple direc-tions. For example, the process of transpiration sitswithin the processes/mechanisms column, but it does

not reside neatly within a single row of the matrix.The idea is that transpiration sits at the boundary ofwater in biotic systems and atmospheric water. Inusing the matrix for planning, we would indicate thatlearning objectives related to transpiration should behighlighted in matrix cells 1-B and 1-A. Similarly,there are relevant competencies that span multipleaspects of water systems. For example, predicting thespread of dissolved materials through a watershedbased on a topographic map involves an ability tothink about surface water at multiple scales (aspect3), from molecular to landscape levels, while simulta-neously interpreting information provided through arepresentational tool (aspect 4). Here again, our con-vention is to match the objective to multiple cells; inthis case matrix cells 3-S and 4-S.

USING THE UWS FRAMEWORK

As mentioned above, our motivation for the develop-ment of the UWS framework stemmed from a needto operationalize learning goals associated with acurriculum development project. Our design targetwas an educational game embedded within a three-dimensional virtual environment that immerses lear-ners in situations that require them to develop ideasabout water systems as they engage in challengingtasks related to management of water resources inthe virtual environment.10 In this case, we were com-mitted to moving beyond the relatively simple anddisconnected ways that water is typically addressedin science curricula, but we required a means bywhich to consider the sequencing of ideas as well asensuring coverage of the domain.

We created the UWS framework to meet theseneeds: as we conceptualized different levels of thegame, we mapped out target learning objectives onthe matrix. This allowed us to see possible gaps inthe curriculum as well as plan for conceptually coher-ent connections across the levels. For example, earlyexperiences within the game called for students tointeract extensively with surface water both in termsof processes and mechanisms that move water acrossa landscape and through representations of surfacewater as in watershed diagrams and topographicmaps. A successive level of the game was designed toencourage student thinking about how water inter-acts at the boundaries of surface and atmosphericsystems. This focus created opportunities for studentsto think about water at different scales (includinglandscape and molecular). As design work for theeducational game progressed, we continued to checkplans against the matrix. In doing so, we realized



that early levels of the game provided very fewopportunities for students to interact with water inbiological systems; this result pushed us to changeour design work to ensure better coverage of ideas.Our initial intent in creating the UWS matrix was toinform design of coherent curriculum materials, in

particular, the educational game referenced above.As the work progressed, it became apparent that thematrix could serve other purposes as well. As weconsidered ways to assess the efficacy of the gameenvironment and associated curriculum materials, weused the matrix as the source of design specifications

TABLE 1 | Understandings of Water Systems Matrix With Sample Learning Goals

ProcessesMechanisms–1 Energy Transfer–2 Scale–3 Representations–4

Dependency/HumanAgency–5

Dimensionsof WaterSystems

Surface water, S 1-S: Explain therelationshipbetweengravity andwatermovement

2-S: Clarify therole of radiantenergy in theevaporation ofwater

3-S: Predict theboundariesof awatershedincludingshape andsize

4-S: Use atopographic mapto identifydirections ofwater flow

5-S: Discussthe impactof humanactivities onthedistributionof surfacewater

Groundwater, G 1-G: Predictrates ofinfiltrationbased on theporosity of thesubstrate

2-G: Describepotential andkinetic energyin themovement ofwaterunderground

3-G: Explainwhy watermovesthrough sandmore freelythan clay

4-G: Create a crosssectional imageto demonstratedifferencesbetweenconfined andunconfinedaquifers

5-G: Monitorthe impact ofagriculturalirrigation ongroundwatersupplies

Atmosphericwater, A

1-A: Describecondensationand cloudformation

2-A: Explain thetransfer ofenergy as liquidwater entersthe atmosphereas a gas

3-A: Comparesizes ofgaseouswatermoleculesandcondensationnuclei

4-A: Interpret adiagramdepicting a rainshadow

5-A: Explain theformation ofsmog

Water in bioticsystems, B

1-B: Explain therole ofpressure inthe movementof waterthrough aplant

2-B: Interpret thetransformationof radiantenergy intochemicalenergy throughphotosynthesis

3-B: Calculatethe amountof water thatflowsthrough onetree and oneacre of treesin theAmazon

4-B: Representbiotic inputs andoutputs in awater cyclediagram

5-B: Analyzethe amountof waterrequired toraise apound ofcorn and apound ofbeef

Water inengineeredsystems, E

1-E: Trace themovement ofwater frommunicipaltreatmentfacilities tohomes

2-E: Relate kineticenergy to theproduction ofelectricalenergy throughhydroelectricdams

3-E: Rank orderby sizepollutantsthat areremovedduring watertreatmentprocesses

4-E: Interpret aschematicdiagram for areverse osmosissystem

5-E: Describetheimportanceof hydrologicengineeringfor managingimpacts offloods anddroughts



for assessment instruments. This process allowed usto ensure alignment of goals, learning materials, andassessments; such alignment is critical to success ofeducational interventions and yet is often notachieved.11,12

The final way that we have employed the UWSmatrix relates to cataloging the kinds of ideas thatstudents tend to naturally hold about water systems.As science educators, we know that one of the mostcritical factors associated with the learning of any sci-ence content is the ideas that students bring withthem to a learning experience.13 An extensive bodyof empirical research has documented ways in whichstudents’ existing ideas about the natural world sig-nificantly shape the meanings they construct whenconfronting new learning experiences.14 Learners ofall ages hold a wide range of ideas about how theworld works. These ideas can come from individuals’intuitive interpretations of their first-hand experi-ences with the world. They can also come from inter-pretations of previous instruction or vicariousexperiences received through accounts communicatedto them by teachers, media, family members, andothers.15 Regardless of where students’ ideas comefrom, students have many ideas about the world andshould not be considered ‘blank slates’ when it comesto teaching new science ideas.16 Many of the intuitiveideas that students hold vary substantially from sci-entific accounts of how the world works. These naïveideas have been termed misconceptions or alternativeideas.17 While the label is not likely all that impor-tant, the fact that students possess these non-normative ideas is critically important because theyshape the ways in which learners interact with pre-sentations of science content.18 Therefore, designingnew learning experiences necessitates deliberateattention to the ideas (misconceptions or alternativeideas) typically held by learners. In planning for ourwork on the development of the water systems edu-cational game, we needed to account for the kinds ofideas that students hold about water systems. Hereagain, we found the UWS matrix to be a useful tool.The matrix provides an organizational tool to sort,order, and draw relationships among students’ ideas,some of which may be non-normative with respect toscientific accounts of water systems. Categorizingpotential misconceptions on the basis of the UWSmatrix makes it easier for curriculum designers andeducators to consider which misconceptions may bemost likely to interact with targeted learning objec-tives (such as those presented in Table 1). Unlike alearning progression, the UWS matrix does not pre-scribe a course of ideas ranging from naïve to moresophisticated, but rather it should be considered as a

tool to organize ideas (including non-normativeideas) across the broad domain of water systems. Inthe section that follows, we use the UWS matrix as ameans of organizing a review of literature related tostudents’ ideas about water systems.

STUDENT IDEAS ABOUTWATER SYSTEMS

Many studies have explored K-12 students’ ideasabout water. Like curriculum which tends to focuson relatively simple representations of water, theresearch on students’ ideas emphasizes discretedimensions of water, such as the water cycle, asopposed to more complex accounts of students’ rea-soning about water systems.19 Figure 1 presents agraphic representation of the water cycle withexplicit reference to the role of energy as a driver ofthe system.20–22 The cyclic transfer of energy occursthrough multiple processes including convection,evaporation, condensation, and the transfer ofenergy, water, and momentum among, the land,plants, ocean surfaces, and the atmosphere.23 Radi-ant energy from the sun is transformed into kineticenergy as liquid water is warmed by radiant energy.This results in a change of state as molecules of liquidwater undergo an increase in kinetic energy causingincreased molecular motion and ultimately enter theatmosphere as water vapor. Solar energy is also cap-tured by plants through photosynthesis which con-verts carbon dioxide and water into simple sugarsand transforms radiant energy into chemical energywhich serves as food for living organisms.21 Plantleaves are essentially factories for photosynthesiswhere chloroplasts utilizing the light reactions andthe Calvin cycle (dark reactions) convert a small por-tion of the water and carbon dioxide from the atmos-phere into simple sugars. Much of the water is notutilized for photosynthesis and water released as awaste product of photosynthesis enters the atmos-phere through evapotranspiration. In addition,human agency also accounts for second generationenergy transformation through building of hydroelec-tric dams. Hydroelectric power plants are able tocapture the energy of flowing water and throughelectrical turbines convert the kinetic energy of waterinto electrical energy for use in society.24,25

Students often hold misconceptions or alternateconceptions relative to the cycle just presented andthese misconceptions have potential to interfere withtheir understanding of accurate explanations for thecycling of water into and out of the atmosphere.1

The concept of a cycle can be problematic for



students; Agelidou et al.26 noted that students oftenperceive natural cycles as based in time (e.g., lifecycles or the cycling of seasons) rather than themovement of matter as indicated in the water cycle.Henriques27 noted that students studying the watercycle must have an understanding of the propertiesof water and the heat exchanges between Earth andthe sun. Furthermore, concepts of the energy transferin the water cycle are difficult for many studentsbecause they deal with a state of matter that is ofteninvisible. Discussions about energy level, such aspotential versus kinetic energy tend to be abstractrather than concrete, which increases the probabilityof misconceptions.27–30 For the purposes of thisreview, we use the physical dimensions of water sys-tems construct as an initial organizing frame andthen discuss aspects of water systems understandingswithin each of the dimensions.

Surface WaterThe surface water system is likely the most easilyunderstood dimension of water systems because itrepresents the dimension that students can mosteasily access and interact with. Most students haveopportunities to see, hear, and touch surface waterfeatures such as streams, lakes, and oceans, andthese kinds of personal experiences can supportlearning of the science related to them.31 However

(or possibly because personal interactions are solikely), learners hold a variety of alternative ideasabout surface water. Many young students havemisconceptions regarding the distribution of wateracross the surface system. They struggle to under-stand the proportion of water volumes in variousreservoirs.32 The concept of watersheds and therole of gravity as a driving force behind the move-ment of water across the surface system (as wellas other dimensions of the water systems) can bedifficult for students. The concept of transforma-tion of potential energy into kinetic energy toexplain how and why water flows from areas ofhigh elevation to areas of lower elevation within awatershed can also be a challenging concept forstudents.3 Even the language we use can introducechallenges for the emergence of coherent reasoningin regards to water; some young learners interpreta ‘watershed’ to mean a shed or building thatholds water.33

The notion of watersheds is central to scientificaccounts of surface water (as well as groundwater),and a range of research has identified multiple waysin which students struggle to understand watershedprocesses, scale, and representations. Students seemto understand that water and materials within awatershed will move to a common area of lower ele-vation; however, they tend to think about watershedsonly in terms of a single river. They also tend not to

Second generation energy transformation

Chemical energy

Leaf interiorphotosynthesis

GaseousH2O

H2Ofrom soil

CO2

Sublimation

Desublimation

Runoff

Percolation

EvaporationEvaporation

Precipitation

Transportation

Transpiration

Condensation

AbsorptionFiltration

Snowmelt runoff

Potential andkinetic enrgy

Solor/radiant energy

First generation energy transformation

O2 C6H12O6

Calvincycle

Lightreactions

FIGURE 1 | Diagram of the water cycle including energy transfer processes.



understand differences between and implications ofpoint and nonpoint sources of water pollution.33

Despite some basic understandings of materials mov-ing with water, learners struggle to trace the likelypath of dissolved materials in water.32 Students inter-preting the movement of materials in water such aspollutants often cannot show how those materialswill likely flow through discrete components of thewatershed as opposed to diffusing through the entirewatershed as if elevation and direction of water flowdid not matter.34 Students often fail to understandthe nested nature of watersheds and the interactionof multiple watersheds in larger systems. Some stu-dents only think about watersheds in mountainousterrain with high levels of relief and extensive eleva-tion changes. This suggests misunderstandings of theway that gravity relates to elevation changes of anydegree. Many learners only conceptualize water andwatersheds in natural areas; natural movement andstores of water are typically not considered withinenvironments with extensive human impacts such asurban areas.33,35,36 In a recent analysis of representa-tions of surface water in science textbooks, Vinishaand Ramadas37 suggest that the diagrams and figurescreated for the purpose of teaching students aboutwatersheds may, in fact, be the most common sourceof some of these misconceptions.

One of the issues that students struggle with isconceptualizing water at the landscape scale.38 Thishas implications for their abilities to think about thevolume of water involved in surface water processes.Students can also struggle with interpreting repre-sentations of surface water. Learners often interpretrepresentations of surface water with a heuristic thatrivers always flow in a southerly direction.38,39

When asked to create their own representations ofsurface water, student often shows rivers movingdown their paper regardless of the geographic orien-tation of the system they are attempting torepresent.40

GroundwaterGroundwater is a dimension of water systems thatis far more difficult for students to experiencedirectly, as compared to surface water, and thisleads to a number of conceptual challenges.7 Manystudents have limited ideas regarding the connec-tions between surface water and groundwater andthe geology that mediates these interactions.33

Until they experience instruction focused on geol-ogy, most learners are unaware of the dynamicrelationships between soil type and rock composi-tion with water movement above and below

ground.38 Not surprisingly, students struggle withissues of scale when considering groundwater.Moving from the idea of water molecules sus-pended in microscopic spaces between soil particlesto the vast quantities of water stored in aquifersthat can stretch across a continent can be challeng-ing to fully comprehend.41

Students can relatively easily come to appreci-ate the fact that water can be stored underground,but misconceptions regarding processes and struc-tures that impact groundwater storage are prevalent.Students often recognize the movement of waterthrough porous rock layers in the upper portions ofthe soil; however, beyond initial infiltration studentideas tend to diverge. For some students, under-ground water moves to surface reservoirs such aslakes and oceans.42 The most common misconcep-tion about groundwater is that it collects in under-ground caverns as subsurface lakes.7 Lost for manystudents, even college level learners, is the idea thatsignificant volumes of water are found in the intersti-tial spaces of rocks and soils.41

Whereas many learners can explain somedimensions of pollution of surface water, they oftenstruggle to understand and explain the flow of pollu-tants in groundwater.7 This may likely be a result ofthe fact that many students struggle to connect watercycling with the groundwater. It is much more likelyfor students to feature water and processes in theatmospheric and surface systems when depicting andexplaining the water cycle.32,43

Atmospheric WaterAs mentioned above, the water cycle, or at leastparts of it, is a common topic covered in school sci-ence, particularly in elementary grades, and water inthe atmospheric system receives a fair amount ofattention through this coverage. So, young learnerstend to understand that significant amounts of waterare in the atmosphere and that processes changewater phases, but several misconceptions aboutthese processes are prevalent.7,28,44–47 School treat-ments of the water cycle often focus on precipita-tion, so many students conceptualize the water cycleas a weather phenomenon as opposed to a dynamicsystem that moves water.42 In fact, some elementarystudents think of the water cycle as an entity thatonly serves as a source of water (i.e., throughrain),42 and students at all levels have been shownto struggle with the idea of the water cycle not hav-ing a fixed beginning or ending point. In these cases,the proposed ‘start’ of the water cycle is usuallyrain.48



In studying atmospheric water, researchershave documented several conceptual difficulties lear-ners have related to processes of evaporation andcondensation. Some students think that cloud for-mation is the direct result of the sun boiling seawater.49 Other learners attribute cloud formation toa supernatural power.38,39,49 Still others conceptual-ize clouds as permanent fixtures within the atmos-phere that operate like sponges. A functionalexplanation with this conception is that cloudsmove over an ocean, draw up water, and then moveto a land area before releasing water throughrain.32,39 Energy is transferred into the atmosphereas water undergoes a change of state from the liquidstate held by abiotic factors (surface water, soil,etc.) and biotic (plants and animals) factors into agaseous state as water vapor enters the atmos-phere.23 During evaporation, energy enters theatmosphere stored within molecules of water vaporas radiant energy converts liquid water into a gase-ous form; conversely, energy is released or trans-ferred to other molecules within the atmosphere askinetic energy during condensation, when watermolecules undergo a change of state from a gaseousform to a liquid form.23,50

Water in Biotic SystemsStudents often omit components of the biospheresuch as humans, plants, and animals when describingthe water cycle.7 For example, the transfer of waterfrom plants into the atmosphere involves energy tofacilitate the change of water from a liquid state to agaseous state. Evapotranspiration occurs when liquidwater in plant leaves is warmed by the sun and entersthe atmosphere as water vapor. A similar processoccurs when animals release liquid water throughrespiration, perspiration, and waste production. Theenergy absorbed by water molecules results in achange of state which transfers radiant energy intokinetic energy within the atmosphere.22

There has been limited research on learners’ideas about water in biotic systems. A few studieshave highlighted the fact that most young learners donot think of plants or humans as a part of naturalwater systems.38,39 Even college level students seemto not include aspects of the biosphere in their think-ing about water.32 Assaraf et al.39 explored studentideas about water consumption but found that stu-dents tended to only consider humans as water con-sumers. Beyond these basic errors of omission, weknow little about how learners think about organ-isms as a part of Earth’s water systems and processessuch as transpiration.

Water in Engineered SystemsThe research literature is similarly limited with respectto students’ understandings of water in engineered sys-tems. Most students seem to know little about the sys-tems that societies create for moving and cleaningwater. Many students do not know where their drink-ing water comes from.32,38 When pushed to thinkthrough the origins of water in municipal systems,most learners hold the idea that humans get their waterdirectly from natural sources rather than water beingprocessed through treatment facilities.19 In a range ofstudies with elementary, middle, and high school stu-dents, a number of misconceptions regarding the pathof water in engineered systems have been presented.Some students do not perceive the differences betweendrinking water treatment plants and wastewaterplants. Others have been shown to think that treatedwastewater moves back into municipal distributionsystems rather than the natural environment, and someyounger learners do not even think of wastewater asbeing treated before being returned to natural environ-ments.32,39 In work with college students, Sammel andMcMartin32 found that this group held generally moresophisticated ideas about the systems that humansengineer for water, but they still held limited ideasregarding conservation. For instance, many of the col-lege students did not equate activities such as takingshorter showers and turning taps off as strategies forwater conservation (Box 1).32

CONCLUSION

In our work, we start with the assumption that stu-dents ought to learn about water in socio-ecologicalsystems as a part of their educational experiences. Anextensive body of research, primarily from the fieldof science education, has been conducted related tothe kinds of misconceptions, alternative conceptionsand limited ideas that learners tend to hold regardingwater and the processes that affect movement, distri-bution, availability, and quality of water. Most lear-ners have extensive experience with surface water,but they tend to struggle with several ideas related towatersheds, representations of watersheds and themultiple scales at which water processes operate. Stu-dents have more limited experiences with groundwa-ter and they often hold misconceptions about thedistribution of water below ground. Research relatedto student understandings of atmospheric water hasrevealed a number of misconceptions related to evap-oration, condensation, and precipitation. Studentstend to have more limited ideas regarding water inbiotic and engineered systems, both of which



represent sets of ideas that receive less curricularattention than other dimensions of water systems.

The framework presented here is designed as atool for unpacking what it means to understandEarth’s water system, which is complex and multi-faceted. As such, the associated matrix can be usedto organize ideas (including learning objectives andwater related misconceptions) and inform the designof curricular materials and assessments. However,the framework certainly does not account for all ofthe factors that will interact with learning. Forinstance, affective factors such as attitudes and valuessignificantly influence learning processes andoutcomes,51 but the framework presented in this arti-cle does not address the affective dimension of learn-ing. Instead, it offers a tool that can be used forinforming cognitive dimensions of learning in thecontext of water systems.

BOX 1

NEXT GENERATION SCIENCESTANDARDS [NGSS] – PERFORMANCEEXPECTATIONS ADDRESSING WATER INTHE K-12 CURRICULUM

Elementary School PerformanceExpectations

2-LS2-1. Plan and conduct an investigation todetermine if need sunlight and water to grow.3-LS4-4. Make a claim about the merit of a solu-tion to a problem caused when the environ-ment changes and the types of plants andanimals that live there may change.4-ESS2-1. Make observations and/or measure-ments to provide evidence of the effects ofweathering on the rate of erosion by water.

Middle School PerformanceExpectations

MS-PS1-1. Develop models to describe theatomic composition of simple molecules andextended structures.MS-PS1-4. Develop a model that predicts anddescribes changes in particle motion, tempera-ture, and state of substance when thermalenergy is added or removed.MS-PS3-4. Plan an investigation to determinethe relationship among the energy transferred,the type of matter, the mass, and the change inthe average kinetic energy of the particles asmeasured by the temperature of the sample.MS-LS1-6. Construct a scientific explanationbased on evidence for the role of photosynthe-sis in the cycling of matter and flow of energyinto and out of organisms.MS-ESS2-2. Construct a scientific explanationbased on evidence for how geoscience pro-cesses have changed Earth’s surface at varyingtime and spatial scales.MS-ESS2-4. Develop a model to describe thecycling of water through Earth’s systems drivenby energy from the sun and the force of gravity.MS-ESS2-5. Collect data to provide evidence forhow the motions and complex interactions ofair masses results in changes within weatherconditions.MS-ESS3-1. Construct a scientific explanationbased on evidence for how the uneven

distributions of the Earth’s mineral, energy, andgroundwater resources are the result of pastand current geoscience processes.MS-ESS3-3. Apply scientific principles to designa method for monitoring and minimizing ahuman impact on the environment.

High School Performance Expectations

HS-PS1-1. Use the periodic table as a model topredict the relative properties of elementsbased on the patterns of electrons in the out-most energy levels of atoms.HS-LS1-5. Use a model to illustrate how photo-synthesis transforms light energy into storedchemical energy.HS-ESS2-4. Use a model to describe how varia-tions in the flow of energy into and out ofEarth’s systems result in changes in climate.HS-ESS3-5. Analyse geoscience data and theresults from global climate models to make anevidence-based forecast of the current rate ofglobal or regional climate change and associ-ated future impacts to Earth systems.HS-ESS3-6. Use a computational representationto illustrate the relationships among Earth sys-tems and how these relationships are beingmodified due to human activity.HS-ESS3-3. Create a computational simulationto illustrate the relationships among manage-ment of natural resources, the sustainability ofhuman populations, and biodiversity.



The UWS framework, which is based on theintersections of various dimensions of water sys-tems and aspects of water systems understandings,provides a tool that helps to organize extant evi-dence on student ideas about water. The frame-work can also be used in the design anddevelopment of new learning materials for watersystems content as well as well-aligned assessment.

We believe that the framework can help advancethe broader range of work being done in the nameof enhancing scientific literacy related to water. Inour work with development of a new middleschool curriculum, involving innovative technolo-gies, the UWS framework will be a useful heuristicin sequencing ideas and ensuring appropriate cover-age of topics.

FURTHER READINGArnell NW. Global water cycle. In: eLS. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001.

Goldman C, Kumagai M, Robarts RD, eds. Climatic Change and Global Warming of Inland Waters: Impacts and Mitiga-tion for Ecosystems and Societies. Oxford: Wiley; 2014. doi:10.1002/9781118470596.

REFERENCES1. Romine WL, Schaffer DL, Barrow L. Development and

application of a novel rasch-based methodology forevaluating multi-tiered assessment instruments: valida-tion and utilization of an undergraduate diagnostic testof the water cycle. Int J Sci Educ 2015, 37:2740–2768.

2. Lall U. Debates—the future of hydrological sciences: a(common) path forward? One water. One world.Many climes. Many souls. Water Resour Res 2014,50:5335–5341.

3. Gunckel KL, Covitt BA, Salinas I, Anderson CW. Alearning progression for water in socio-ecological sys-tems. J Res Sci Teach 2012, 49:843–868.

4. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards:For States by States. Washington: National AcademiesPress; 2013.

5. Gross P, Buttrey D, Goodenough U, Koertge N,Lerner L, Schwartz M, Schwartz R. Final Evaluation ofthe Next Generation Science Standards. Washington:Thomas B Fordham Institute; 2013, 67.

6. Márquez C, Izquierdo M, Espinet M. Multimodal sci-ence teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle.Sci Educ 2006, 90:202–226.

7. Assaraf OBZ, Orion N. Development of system think-ing skills in the context of earth system education.J Res Sci Teach 2005, 42:518–560.

8. Duncan RG, Hmelo-Silver CE. Learning progressions:aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. J ResSci Teach 2009, 46:606–609.

9. Council NR. Taking Science to School: Learning andTeaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC:National Research Council; 2007.

10. Laffey JM, Sadler TD, Goggins SP, Griffin J,Babiuch RN. Mission HydroSci: Distance Learningthrough Game-Based 3D Virtual Learning

Environments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Ref-erence; 2016.

11. Moore GW, Slate JR, Edmonson SL, Combs JP,Bustamante R, Onwuegbuzie AJ. High school studentsand their lack of preparedness for college: a statewidestudy. Educ Urban Soc 2010, 42:817–838.

12. Webb NL. Issues related to judging the alignment ofcurriculum standards and assessments. Appl MeasEduc 2007, 20:7–25.

13. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR. How PeopleLearn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

14. Duit R, Treagust DF. Conceptual change: a powerfulframework for improving science teaching and learn-ing. Int J Sci Educ 2003, 25:671–688.

15. Hewson MG, Hewson PW. Effect of instruction usingstudents’ prior knowledge and conceptual change stra-tegies on science learning. J Res Sci Teach 2003, 40:S86–S98.

16. Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA.Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward atheory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 1982,66:211–227.

17. Taber KS. Shifting sands: a case study of conceptualdevelopment as competition between alternative con-ceptions. Int J Sci Educ 2001, 23:731–753.

18. Scott P, Asoko H, Leach J. Student Conceptions andConceptual Learning in Science. Mawah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.

19. Covitt BA, Gunckel KL, Anderson CW. Students’developing understanding of water in environmentalsystems. J Environ Educ 2009, 40:37–51.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118470596

20. Manabe S. Climate and the ocean circulation 1: i. Theatmospheric circulation and the hydrology of theearth’s surface. Mon Weather Rev 1969, 97:739–774.

21. Deardorff J. Efficient prediction of ground surface tem-perature and moisture, with inclusion of a layer of veg-etation. J Geophys Res Oceans 1978, 83:1889–1903.

22. Pitman A. The evolution of, and revolution in, landsurface schemes designed for climate models. Int J Cli-matol 2003, 23:479–510.

23. Sellers P, Dickinson R, Randall D, Betts A, Hall F,Berry J, Collatz G, Denning A, Mooney H, Nobre C.Modeling the exchanges of energy, water, and carbonbetween continents and the atmosphere. Science 1997,275:502–509.

24. Gleick PH. Water and energy. Annu Rev Energy Envi-ron 1994, 19:267–299.

25. Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya F, Gil C,Alcayde A, Gómez J. Optimization methods applied torenewable and sustainable energy: a review. RenewSustain Energy Rev 2011, 15:1753–1766.

26. Agelidou E, Balafoutas G, Gialamas V. Interpretinghow third grade junior high school students representwater. Int J Environ Educ Inform 2001, 20:19–36.

27. Henriques L. Children’s ideas about weather: a reviewof the literature. School Sci Math 2002, 102:202–215.

28. Canpolat N. Turkish undergraduates’ misconceptionsof evaporation, evaporation rate, and vapour pressure.Int J Sci Educ 2006, 28:1757–1770.

29. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M. Pupils’ ideas concerningenergy sources. Int J Sci Educ 1990, 12:513–529.

30. Miller RL, Streveler RA, Nelson MA, Geist MR,Olds BM. Concept inventories meet cognitive psychol-ogy: using beta testing as a mechanism for identifyingengineering student misconceptions. In: Proceedings ofthe 2005 American Society for Engineering EducationAnnual Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR 2005.

31. Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Scott P, Mortimer E.Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educ Res 1994, 23:5–12.

32. Sammel AJ, McMartin DW. Teaching and knowingbeyond the water cycle: what does it mean to be waterliterate? Creat Educ 2014, 5:835–848.

33. Shepardson DP, Harbor J, Wee B. Water towers, pumphouses, and mountain streams: students’ ideas aboutwatersheds. J Geosci Educ 2005, 53:381.

34. Gunckel KL, Covitt BA, Anderson C. Teacherresponses to assessments of understanding of water insocio-ecological systems: a learning progressionsapproach. In: Annual International Conference of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching,Philadelphia, PA, 2010.

35. Gill SE, Marcum-Dietrich N, Becker-Klein R. Modelmy watershed: connecting students’ conceptual

understanding of watersheds to real-world decisionmaking. J Geosci Educ 2014, 62:61–73.

36. Sell KS, Herbert BE, Stuessy CL, Schielack J. Support-ing student conceptual model development of complexEarth systems through the use of multiple representa-tions and inquiry. J Geosci Educ 2006, 54:396.

37. Vinisha K, Ramadas J. Visual representations of thewater cycle in science textbooks. Contemp Educ Dia-logue 2013, 10:7–36.

38. Schwartz KL, Thomas-Hilburn H, Haverland A.Grounding water: building conceptual understandingthrough multimodal assessment. J Geosci Educ 2011,59:139–150.

39. Assaraf OB-Z, Eshach H, Orion N, Alamour Y. Cul-tural differences and students’ spontaneous models ofthe water cycle: a case study of Jewish and Bedouinchildren in Israel. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2012,7:451–477.

40. Dove J. Student preferences in the depiction of thewater cycle and selected landforms. Int Res GeogrEnviron Educ 1997, 6:135–147.

41. Dickerson D, Callahan TJ, Van Sickle M, Hay G. Stu-dents’ conceptions of scale regarding groundwater.J Geosci Educ 2005, 53:374.

42. Shepardson DP, Wee B, Priddy M, Schellenberger L,Harbor J. Water transformation and storage in themountains and at the coast: midwest students’ discon-nected conceptions of the hydrologic cycle. Int J SciEduc 2009, 31:1447–1471.

43. Assaraf OBZ, Orion N. System thinking skills at theelementary school level. J Res Sci Teach 2010,47:540–563.

44. Cardak O. Science students’ misconceptions of thewater cycle according to their drawings. J Appl Sci2009, 9:865–873.

45. Costu B, Ayas A. Evaporation in different liquids: sec-ondary students’ conceptions. Res Sci Technol Educ2005, 23:75–97.

46. Costu B, Ayas A, Niaz M. Promoting conceptualchange in first year students’ understanding of evapo-ration. Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11:5–16.

47. Stavy R. Using analogy to overcome misconceptionsabout conservation of matter. J Res Sci Teach 1991,28:305–313.

48. Orion N. An Earth systems curriculum developmentmodel. In: Mayer VJ, ed. Global Science Literacy.Springer; 2002, 159–168.

49. Bar V. Children’s views about the water cycle. SciEduc 1989, 73:481–500.

50. Allen PA. Earth Surface Processes. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons; 1997.

51. Hidi S, Renninger KA. The four-phase model of inter-est development. Educ Psychol 2006, 41:111–127.



The research described herein is supported by the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (R305A150364) and Investing in Innovation (i3) program (U411C140081). The ideas expressed are those of our project team and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.

water systems understandings: a framework for designing ... › fulltext › ed600988.pdf · water...

Documents