Abstract
Given the importance of fresh water, we investigated undergraduate students’ understanding of water flow and its consequences. We probed introductory geology students’ pre-instruction knowledge using a classroom management system at two large research-intensive universities. Open-ended clicker questions, where students click directly on diagrams using their smart device (e.g., cell phone, tablet) to respond, probed students’ predictions about: (1) groundwater movement and (2) velocity and erosion in a river channel. Approximately one-third of students correctly identified groundwater flow as having lateral and vertical components; however, the same number of students identified only vertical components to flow despite the diagram depicting enough topographic gradient for lateral flow. For rivers depicted as having a straight channel, students correctly identified zones of high velocity. However, for curved river channels, students incorrectly identified the inside of the bend as the location of greatest erosion and highest velocity. Systematic errors suggest that students have mental models of water flow that are not consistent with fluid dynamics. The use of students’ open-ended clicks to reveal common errors provided an efficient tool to identify conceptual challenges associated with the complex spatial and temporal processes that govern water movement in the Earth system.
Highlights
In his critical and thought-provoking piece on science literacy, Feinstein posits that science literacy is “not incidentally but fundamentally about identifying relevance: learning to see how science is or could be significant to the things you care about most” [1] (p. 180)
Most students click in the unconfined aquifer consisting of the zone of saturation, the sand and gravel layer labeled in orange in Figure 4 (26%, n = 100) and the zone of aeration, the unlabeled region above the water table labeled in red in Figure 4 (8%, n = 32)
We suggest two possible adjustments to the visuals may improve how they communicate to students: changing the angle of the straight river channel to be aligned with the vertical axis to avoid this potential confound or adding a callout that reveals the cross-sectional view of the river channel
Summary
In his critical and thought-provoking piece on science literacy, Feinstein posits that science literacy is “not incidentally but fundamentally about identifying relevance: learning to see how science is or could be significant to the things you care about most” [1] (p. 180). Similar to recent studies by Arthurs and Elwondger [3] and Lally and Forbes [8], the present study leverages visual models (e.g., diagrams) to explore students’ reasoning about surface and ground water processes One rationale for this approach is to understand our students’ knowledge base and how that differs from the scientific knowledge that people need to make informed decisions about water-related issues (e.g., town planning boards, community referenda). The goal of this study was to assess undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of fluid dynamics (e.g., velocity, flow direction) in rivers and groundwater using diagrams, a largely unexplored aspect of water literacy These topics are of particular importance because groundwater flow determines the migration of pollutants and surface water flow patterns determine zones of high erosion. A well-informed public must understand these spatially and temporally dynamic processes to predict their impact on health and safety in their community (e.g., drinking water, riverbank erosion)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
