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

One of the keys to science and environmental literacy is systems thinking. Learning how to think about the interactions between systems, the far-reaching effects of a system, and the dynamic nature of systems are all critical outcomes of science learning. However, students need support to develop systems thinking skills in undergraduate geoscience classrooms. While systems thinking-focused instruction has the potential to benefit student learning, gaps exist in our understanding of students’ use of systems thinking to operationalize and model SHS, as well as their metacognitive evaluation of systems thinking. To address this need, we have designed, implemented, refined, and studied an introductory-level, interdisciplinary course focused on coupled human-water, or sociohydrologic, systems. Data for this study comes from three consecutive iterations of the course and involves student models and explanations for a socio-hydrologic issue (n = 163). To analyze this data, we counted themed features of the drawn models and applied an operationalization rubric to the written responses. Analyses of the written explanations reveal statistically-significant differences between underlying categories of systems thinking (F(5, 768) = 401.6, p \u3c 0.05). Students were best able to operationalize their systems thinking about problem identification (M = 2.22, SD = 0.73) as compared to unintended consequences (M = 1.43, SD = 1.11). Student-generated systems thinking models revealed statistically significant differences between system components, patterns, and mechanisms, F(2, 132) = 3.06, p \u3c 0.05. Students focused most strongly on system components (M = 13.54, SD = 7.15) as compared to related processes or mechanisms. Qualitative data demonstrated three types of model limitation including scope/scale, temporal, and specific components/mechanisms/patterns excluded. These findings have implications for supporting systems thinking in undergraduate geoscience classrooms, as well as insight into links between these two skills

Environmental Standards, Management Systems and the Illusion of Progress

This paper aims to specify the conceptual and operational limits of codified environmental management systems (EMSs). Taking technical standardization as a departure-point, it is argued that key shortcomings regarding the contribution of EMSs towards environmental performance improvement (and thus ecological sustainability) can be identified: First, there are limitations to the self-regulatory framework adopted by organizations. Second, there are problems inherent within the development of EMS from prior management systems approaches, mostly based on a narrow and limited definition of quality. Third, there are errors of implementation and associated certification which compound a lack of progress in environmental improvement and progress towards sustainability. The implications of these limitations are presented and it is demonstrated that they are compounded by an appearance of progress, when in reality, little is changing. The authors point out that this failure of system based self-regulation argues for a move to performance based regime, driven if necessary by regulation

General cost analysis for scholarly communication in Germany : results of the "Houghton Report" for Germany

Management Summary: Conducted within the project “Economic Implications of New Models for Information Supply for Science and Research in Germany”, the Houghton Report for Germany provides a general cost and benefit analysis for scientific communication in Germany comparing different scenarios according to their specific costs and explicitly including the German National License Program (NLP). Basing on the scholarly lifecycle process model outlined by Björk (2007), the study compared the following scenarios according to their accounted costs: - Traditional subscription publishing, - Open access publishing (Gold Open Access; refers primarily to journal publishing where access is free of charge to readers, while the authors or funding organisations pay for publication) - Open Access self-archiving (authors deposit their work in online open access institutional or subject-based repositories, making it freely available to anyone with Internet access; further divided into (i) CGreen Open Access’ self-archiving operating in parallel with subscription publishing; and (ii) the ‘overlay services’ model in which self-archiving provides the foundation for overlay services (e.g. peer review, branding and quality control services)) - the NLP. Within all scenarios, five core activity elements (Fund research and research communication; perform research and communicate the results; publish scientific and scholarly works; facilitate dissemination, retrieval and preservation; study publications and apply the knowledge) were modeled and priced with all their including activities. Modelling the impacts of an increase in accessibility and efficiency resulting from more open access on returns to R&D over a 20 year period and then comparing costs and benefits, we find that the benefits of open access publishing models are likely to substantially outweigh the costs and, while smaller, the benefits of the German NLP also exceed the costs. This analysis of the potential benefits of more open access to research findings suggests that different publishing models can make a material difference to the benefits realised, as well as the costs faced. It seems likely that more Open Access would have substantial net benefits in the longer term and, while net benefits may be lower during a transitional period, they are likely to be positive for both ‘author-pays’ Open Access publishing and the ‘over-lay journals’ alternatives (‘Gold Open Access’), and for parallel subscription publishing and self-archiving (‘Green Open Access’). The NLP returns substantial benefits and savings at a modest cost, returning one of the highest benefit/cost ratios available from unilateral national policies during a transitional period (second to that of ‘Green Open Access’ self-archiving). Whether ‘Green Open Access’ self-archiving in parallel with subscriptions is a sustainable model over the longer term is debateable, and what impact the NLP may have on the take up of Open Access alternatives is also an important consideration. So too is the potential for developments in Open Access or other scholarly publishing business models to significantly change the relative cost-benefit of the NLP over time. The results are comparable to those of previous studies from the UK and Netherlands. Green Open Access in parallel with the traditional model yields the best benefits/cost ratio. Beside its benefits/cost ratio, the meaningfulness of the NLP is given by its enforceability. The true costs of toll access publishing (beside the buyback” of information) is the prohibition of access to research and knowledge for society

Scholarly collaboration across time zones

The barriers to global collaboration of yesteryear were, for example, country boundaries and time zones. Today however, in a world where communication is thriving on new technologies, these barriers have been overcome, not only by the technology itself, but also by the collaborators in a desire (and need) to extend knowledge, seize opportunities and build partnerships. This chapter reports on one such collaboration: a case study where the focus is the writing of a scholarly article between authors from Australia, England and South Africa. The challenges of different time zones, academic calendars, and managing the collaboration are outlined in this chapter. Findings from the case study suggests that the key elements of success are related to the individuals and project management techniques, and not the technology per se. The constructivist learning theory as well as the e-Moderation model are supported by this work and thus extend their application to the academic writing process

Persuading developers to buy into software process improvement: an exploratory analysis

In order to investigate practitioners' opinions of software process and software process improvement, we have collected information from 13 companies, in a variety of ways i.e. the use of Repertory Grid Technique, survey and focus group discussions. Both the Repertory Grid Technique and the focus group discussions (43 discussions occurred, in total) produced a large volume of qualitative data. At the same time, other researchers have reported--investigations of practitioners, and we are interested in how their reports may relate to our own. Thus, other research publications can also be treated as a form of qualitative data. In this paper, we review advice on a method, content analysis, that is used to analyse qualitative data. Content analysis is a method for identifying and classifying words and phrases used in--ordinary language. We use content analysis to describe and analyse discussions on software--process and software process improvement. We report preliminary findings from an analysis--of both the focus group evidence and some publications. Our main finding is that there is an--apparent contradiction between developers saying that they want evidence for software process improvement, and what developers will accept as evidence. This presents a serious problem for research: even if researchers could demonstrate a strong, reliable relationship between software process improvement and improved organisational performance, there would still be the problem of convincing practitioners that the evidence applies to their particular situation