ORX1300010 584..592 Tools for thinking applied to nature: an inclusive pedagogical framework for environmental education M E R E D I T H R O O T - B E R N S T E I N , M I C H E L E R O O T - B E R N S T E I N and R O B E R T R O O T - B E R N S T E I N Abstract An effective educational framework is necessary to develop the engagement of children and adults with nature. Here we show how the tools for thinking framework can be applied to this end. The tools comprise 13 sensory- based cognitive skills that form the basis for formalized expressions of knowledge and understanding in the sciences and arts. These skills are explicitly taught in some curricula. We review evidence of specific tools for thinking in the self-reported thinking processes and influential childhood experiences of prominent biologists, conservationists and naturalists. Tools such as imaging, abstracting, pattern rec- ognition, dimensional thinking, empathizing, modelling and synthesizing play key roles in practical ecology, biogeo- graphy and animal behaviour studies and in environmental education. Ethnographic evidence shows that people engage with nature by using many of the same tools for thinking. These tools can be applied in conservation education programmes at all levels by actively emphasizing the role of the tools in developing understanding, and using them to design effective educational initiatives and assess existing environmental education. Keywords Biophilia, empathy, environmental education, Gerald Durrell, John Muir, naturalists, Robert MacArthur, tools for thinking Introduction Improving conservation education and fostering attach-ment to nature are considered essential to prepare future generations of conservation biologists and facilitate positive outcomes for conservation initiatives (Noss, 1997; Orr, 1999; Ewert et al., 2005). Simply placing children in natural settings for play or for study is not enough to foster biophilia (Turner, 2003; Louv, 2008). Developing engagement with nature requires an educational framework. One proposal is to use the naturalistic intelligence defined in Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1999) to guide conservation education in schools and outreach programmes (Jacobson et al., 2006; Hayes, 2009). This type of intelligence is identified as a cognitive capacity typical of naturalists and those who excel in the study of nature. Gardner’s multiple intelligences have been characterized in a strong form as innate (thus largely unteachable), dedi- cated, computational capacities existing in discrete mental silos and characterized by a unique developmental style and a specialized language (Gardner, 1983), and in a weak form as clusters of competences that exist on a gradient and coalesce into culturally valued forms of learning and ex- pression (Gardner, 1999). This theory is most often used to justify teaching in multiple formal languages (e.g. verbal, mathematical, dance) to reach multiple intelligences. We disagree with multiple intelligence theory on several grounds and propose alternative educational recommenda- tions. Here we present a universal, targeted and inter- disciplinary approach to conservation education. We propose that conservation education should be centred on teachable and learnable cognitive skills that are accessible to everyone. We believe that those who appreciate and study nature share a common set of tools for thinking with everyone else (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999) and that by stimulating and practising these skills everyone has the potential to develop an improved understanding of and appreciation for nature. Analysing what hundreds of scientists, artists and inventors have reported about their own thinking processes we have identified 13 cognitive skills or tools common to creative problem-solving endeav- ours across disciplines (Table 1; Root-Bernstein & Root- Bernstein, 1999). Used serially or in an integrated manner, clustered according to task and talent, these tools reflect intuitive ways of thinking that yield formal understanding through sensual experience, emotional feeling and intellec- tual knowledge. Their exercise largely precedes the rational articulation of knowledge in words, numbers or artistic or other disciplinary expressions. One core difference between tools for thinking and multiple intelligences is thus that we put pedagogical emphasis on mode of cognition rather than mode of expression. Teaching in multiple formal languages MEREDITH ROOT-BERNSTEIN* Department of Ecology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile MICHELE ROOT-BERNSTEIN Department of Theatre, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA ROBERT ROOT-BERNSTEIN (Corresponding author) Department of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. E-mail rootbern@ msu.edu *Also at: School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK Received 21 August 2012. Revision requested 28 November 2012. Accepted 9 January 2013. First published online 13 March 2014. © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 48(4), 584–592 doi:10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core is not on its own an adequate educational strategy because (as polymaths adept in multiple disciplines can demon- strate) formal expressions are interchangeable, translatable products whose forms are dictated by disciplinary norms, not the origins or bases of ways of learning and thinking. The tools for thinking are trainable and their practised, conscious use improves analytical and creative thought through learning how and when each tool can be applied to a given problem or situation. This is a second core difference between tools for thinking and multiple intelligences; train- ing people to concentrate on a cluster of competences is contrary to the evidence that successful practitioners in any field learn to use many or all of the tools for thinking. Teaching should thus focus on training everyone to use each of the tools. However, systematic training in the use of specific tools has often been clustered in particular domains despite being applicable to a range of multidisciplinary activities (Table 2; Root-Bernstein, 1991; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999). One of our key arguments is that making the tools for thinking explicit in science-based and avocational conser- vation activities will improve performance in relevant thinking, feeling and problem-solving. This claim takes a position within the complex field involving consciousness, introspection and knowledge. Previously researchers be- lieved that it was impossible for introspection to produce accurate reports of cognitive processes but this view has been critiqued and problematized (White, 1988). There are many different aspects of a cognitive process (e.g. rules, intermediate outputs, causal explanations) and many forms in which they can be reported (White, 1988). People appear to have little or no introspective insight into psychological processes underlying perception (e.g. illusions), motor learning (i.e. acquiring muscular patterns), attitudes or TABLE 1 Descriptions of the 13 tools for thinking, with examples of their application in conservation. Tools are listed in order of potential development, from basic to complex. For source material see Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein (1999). Tool Description Examples in conservation science or outreach Observing Honing all the senses to perceive acutely Finding signs of animal activity in a habitat; recognizing a new species Imaging Creating mental images using any or all senses Imagining a plant, insect or bird species from its description in a guide; imagining biogeochemical cycles Abstracting Eliminating all but the essential characteristics of a complex thing Selecting functional traits in functional trait ecology; focusing on carbon in REDD+ payment for ecosystem service programmes Recognizing patterns Perceiving similarities in structures or properties of different things Investigating diversity–latitude & diversity–altitude relationships; studying El Niño/La Niña cycle effects Forming patterns Creating or discovering new ways to organize things Making taxonomies & phylogenies; developing data-sharing structures; developing selection guidelines for flagship species Analogizing Discovering functional similarities between structurally different things Studying the common ecological roles of top predators & megafauna; proposing fire as a herbivore Body thinking Reasoning with muscles, muscle memory, gut feelings & emotional states Engaging in charisma-generating interactions with other species, such as swimming with dolphins; designing structures such as bridges or barriers to affect movements of wild animals Empathizing ‘Becoming the thing’ one studies, be it animate or inanimate Raising or living with wild animals to understand species- specific behaviours; analysing what selfish genes ‘want’ Dimensional thinking Translating between two & three (or more) dimensions (e.g. between a blueprint & an invention); scaling up or down; altering perceptions of space & time Putting space & scale into ecological models; communicating the possible effects of climate change Modelling Creating a simplified or miniaturized analogue of a complex thing to test or modify its properties Creating a model habitat in a shoebox; graphical, mathematical & simulation models of ecological processes Playing Undertaking a goalless activity for fun, incidentally developing skill, knowledge & intuition Playing outdoors; catching insects or collecting flowers as an amateur; amateur nature photography; doing a low- investment, high-risk exploratory study Transforming Using any or all tools for thinking in a serial or integrated manner Observing biodiversity at a field site; hypothesizing an expected pattern; searching for the pattern; abstracting the key parameters controlling the observed pattern; building a graphical model based on the abstracted parameters; scaling the model up to derive global implications Synthesizing Knowing in multiple ways simultaneously: bodily, intuitively & subjectively as well as mentally, explicitly & objectively Studying invasive species in a restoration ecology context; developing a long-term relationship with a local habitat, park or study site Tools for thinking in conservation 585 © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core self-esteem (Wilson & Dunn, 2004). By contrast, introspec- tion can provide accurate reports of cognitive working memory (Baars & Franklin, 2003) and, as such, is inter- preted as indicating the development of conscious knowl- edge (Baars & Franklin, 2003). A common definition of conscious knowledge is knowledge whose use can be controlled (Jacoby, 1991). Knowledge may be unconscious when its representations are of too poor quality to support control, while still affecting performance (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 2002). There is evidence that control, and hence consciousness, of different aspects of knowledge exists on a gradient and that as learning progresses, knowledge can come under greater control (Fu et al., 2007). Subjects who progress from unconscious to conscious knowledge during a learning task are able to use the knowledge strategically (Haider et al., 2011). When conscious knowledge is manipulated by intentional instruction, significant quali- tative and quantitative improvements in performance are observed (Haider et al., 2011). Thus we argue that intro- spection by talented practitioners (who have developed high levels of control) is a valid tool for generating reports about cognitive processes using the tools for thinking. Explicit teaching and thinking with the tools is then expected to improve their control and strategic use by students and consequently improve measures of performance. Here we make a case for the central role of tools for thinking in conservation-related research and nature appreciation, using qualitative research methods. We present examples from memoirs and other writings by and about naturalists, conservationists, ecologists and biologists. We also draw on ethnographic studies of the public’s engagement with nature. The focus on thinking tools offers a novel approach to understanding that engage- ment. It also facilitates pedagogical replication of critical processes of that engagement, with implications for conservation education in the classroom and in the public arena. The role of childhood experience Childhood exposure to nature can be a defining experience (Louv, 2008). The naturalist Gerald Durrell, founder of the first conservation-oriented zoo, published two memoirs about his childhood on the Greek island of Corfu, where he learned to train his eyes and body to observe nature (Durrell, 1956). The ethologist and artist Desmond Morris spent his childhood similarly. He described the experience of observing samples of pond water through a microscope: ‘I felt I was entering a secret kingdom, where flagella undulated, cilia beat, cells divided, antennae twitched, and tiny organs pulsated. I spent so much time with my head bowed over the eyepiece of this magical instrument, and became so engrossed TABLE 2 Examples of areas of learning where explicit training in the tools for thinking is provided. Tool Areas where currently trained explicitly References Observing Nature appreciation Scientific training Checkovich & Sterling (2001) NSF (2000), Dvornich et al. (2011) Imaging Reading comprehension Engineering Chemistry Surgery Spatial reasoning Borduin et al. (1994) Alias et al. (2002) Drummond & Selvaratnam (2009) Sorby (2009) Beermann et al. (2010), Stieff (2011) Abstracting Computer science Mathematical modelling Root-Bernstein (1991) Bennedsen & Caspersen (2008) Pattern forming and pattern recognition Mathematical reasoning Silvia (1977), Burton (1982), Pasnak et al. (1987) Analogizing Scientific training Glynn (1991), Harrison & Treagust (1994), Coll et al. (2005) Body thinking Sciences Druyan (1997), Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein (2005), Robson (2011) Empathizing Medicine Animal welfare outreach Ascione (1997) Mariti et al. (2011), Riess et al. (2012) Dimensional thinking Geology Chemistry Kastens & Ishikawa (2006) Stieff (2011) Modelling Ecology Other sciences Welden (1999) Ewing et al. (2003), Musante (2006) Transforming Uses of graphs Thought experiments Colburn (2009) Galili (2009) All or most Kindergarten through PhD curricula Hawaii Arts Alliance (accessed 2012), Mishra et al. (2011), Mishra et al. (2012), Kellam et al. (2013) 586 M. Root-Bernstein et al. © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core with what I saw, that I would cheerfully have dived down the tube of the microscope.. .’ (Morris, 1979, p. 15). For Morris this was the first experience of an imaginative skill he later found critical to his work as a zoologist and artist (Morris, 1979; Root-Bernstein, 2005). The lepidopter- ist and novelist Vladimir Nabokov also combined artistic and scientific response to nature. He described his numerous childhood hunts for new specimens as synaes- thetic (multi-sensorial) experiences. His success in finding butterflies of which he had only read verbal descriptions (Nabokov, 1947) implies a well-developed ability to recall what he had seen at first- or second-hand or to imagine what the unseen species might look like. It also suggests an ability to form patterns, to organize phenomena in systematic ways, to recognize gaps in that organization and conjecture the existence of new phenomena, all skills that would have served him well at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, where he made contributions to butterfly taxonomy (Lumenello, 2005). Aware of the childhood foundation for his cognitive skills, Nabokov advised adults never to hurry children absorbed in play (Nabokov, 1947). The maturation of engagement and practice The skilled analytical activities of biologists, such as decomposition of complex systems into functional parts or hypothesizing causal pathways, can all be reduced to constituent tools for thinking: analysis of complex systems is a combination of abstracting and patterning; hypothesizing causal pathways is a combination of patterning, analogizing and modelling. Here we review examples of how tools for thinking have contributed to the research or outreach of naturalists, biologists and conservationists. Observing the natural environment leads to pattern recognition and formation, both of which are critical to teasing out ecological or biological structures and their functions. The 19th century philosopher and naturalist Henry David Thoreau recorded in prose and sketches the details of what he saw, heard, smelled, touched and tasted during his walks (Thoreau, 2009). He also returned repeatedly to the question of how new oak forests were formed. After observing a squirrel burying a nut, he imagined the large-scale pattern that would emerge from repetition: ‘This, then, is the way forests are planted.. .If the squirrel is killed, or neglects its deposit, a hickory springs up’ (Thoreau, 2009, pp. 454–455). Similarly, through the selection of key images, the biologist and writer Rachel Carson revealed ecological functions and patterns, with their particular rhythms over time and space. She supplemented her observations of ocean life by imaging deep-sea scenes and processes that she could not witness (Lear, 2007). Biogeography began with the search for repeating patterns in community composition over space, and has developed increasingly sophisticated tools, concepts and models of pattern-forming (Lomolino et al., 2004). Current advances in ecology and biogeography are indebted to dimensional thinking, focusing on the influence of space on biological processes and exploring scale-dependence in space and time (Levin, 1992; Whittaker et al., 2005). The naturalist E.O. Wilson describes how dimensional thinking granted him insight into how to conduct his experimental studies of island biogeography: ‘To an ant or spider one-millionth the size of a deer, a single tree is like a whole forest. The lifetime of such a creature can be spent in a microterritory the size of a dinner plate. Once I revised my scale of vision downward in this way I realized that there are thousands of such miniature islands in the United States, sprinkled along the coasts as well as inland in the midst of lakes and streams’ (Wilson, 1994, p. 262). By contrast, many advances in animal behaviour research and outreach have occurred as a result of empathy. Jane Goodall wrote that ‘intuitive interpretations [of chimpanzee behaviour], which may be based on an understanding stemming directly from empathy with the subject, can be tested afterward against the facts set out in the data’ (Goodall, 1986). Combining empathizing with the kinaes- thetic enactments of body thinking and playing, Konrad Lorenz would crouch and waddle like a goose to raise and study his goslings, or speak to birds using their own calls (Lorenz, 1952). By these and similar means he was able to observe many species-specific behaviours, including im- printing and courtship (Lorenz, 1952; Burkhardt, 2005). The neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky also expressed a strong identification with the animals he studied: ‘I joined the baboon troop during my twenty-first year. I had never planned to become a savannah baboon when I grew up, instead, I had always assumed I would become a mountain gorilla’ (Sapolsky, 2001, p.1). Sapolsky’s empathy and judicious anthropomorphism allowed him to develop a functional comparison between baboon personalities and society and human personalities and society. That extended analogy had clear scientific outcomes in his discoveries linking stress physiology, personality differences and the dominance hierarchy (Sapolsky, 2001). Although its validity as a research tool is debated, anthropomorphization can be helpful for engaging the public empathetically with other species and promoting conservation (Root-Bernstein et al., 2013). Tools for thinking are usually used in clusters, according to problem-solving needs. The mathematical ecologist Robert MacArthur, who founded several subfields in ecology, had a passion for observing, abstracting, pattern recognition, and imaging or visualizing his models as memorable and elegant graphs (Pianka & Horn, 2005). Tools for thinking in conservation 587 © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core Observed data had first to be abstracted or simplified into generalizations. He then patterned generalizations in new ways to draw out new implications. He believed that the best science ‘comes from the creation of de novo and heuristic classification of natural phenomena’ (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1989). He further excelled at the translation of derived patterns into the formalisms of mathematics and mathematical models, using mathematics to communicate ideas developed with multiple tools for thinking. Accomplished biologists and naturalists demonstrate a capacity to use multiple tools for thinking, to transform or move serially from one to another and to use them simultaneously and synthetically. The naturalist and con- servationist John Muir demonstrated an ability to observe with all his senses and with empathic sensitivity, to body- think a route over challenging landscapes while noticing the influence of large-scale geological patterns on smaller- scale patterns such as animal movements (Muir, 1954). He communicated his experiences not in mathematics, like MacArthur, but in evocative prose. Promoting engagement through conservation education Imaginative, sensual thinking is central to the creative processes of biologists, ecologists and conservationists. Therefore incorporating tools for thinking explicitly in educational curricula at all levels and in outreach pro- grammes would help to prepare future naturalists, biolo- gists, conservationists and concerned citizens. Anthropological research has shown that non-scientists relate to animals and nature through sensual engagement and use tools for thinking, such as imaging, body thinking, pattern recognition and empathizing, to under- stand their experiences. People who swim with dolphins, for instance, report experiencing transformative physical grace, a form of body-thinking that enables them to identify empathetically with dolphins and with nature as a whole (Peace, 2005; Servais, 2005). A reindeer herder has described empathizing with his reindeers at play in the snow (Lorimer, 2006). Volunteers in a scientific study of corncrakes used auditory and kinaesthetic imaging, pattern recog- nition, and transforming to interpret radio-tracking noise (Lorimer, 2008). Folk biology, local ecological knowledge and people’s ability to recognize morphospecies (Dupré, 1999; Abadie et al., 2008) depend on pattern recognition and pattern forming, whether in terms of identifying morphospecies or categorizing them as edible or inedible, for example. Researchers have tried to understand such engagement by invoking non-human charisma. Lorimer (2007) defined three types: ecological charisma refers to the way we detect or sense a species, corporeal charisma to the epiphanies we experience through physical engagement with a species, and aesthetic charisma to our emotional response to a species’ appearance. Non-human charisma is often misunderstood as an intrinsic characteristic of a species but it is intended to refer to the processes through which we understand species as fellow beings (Lorimer, 2007). Tools for thinking can play a role in these processes. Observing, imaging and patterning can underlie ecological charisma, body thinking and empathizing can contribute to developing corporeal charisma, and synthe- sizing and synaesthetic thinking can lead to aesthetic charisma. There are several ways in which tools for thinking can be implemented in conservation education. They can be used to make people more aware of how they can interact with nature in the most rewarding ways, to devise the most effective conservation education approaches, and to evaluate educational programmes. The passive inclusion of tools for thinking in environ- mental education is not sufficient to make people aware of how they can apply these tools to understand nature (Turner, 2003; Dvornich et al., 2011); teaching and outreach must be active and explicit. Although all the tools can be applied to conservation science and outreach (Table 1), tools are problem-specific and need not be taught as a complete group in each creative or problem-solving activity. Learning to observe well can help change young people’s perceptions of nature from an empty, bewildering or meaningless place to a place filled with stories and secrets (Fig. 1). A tools-for-thinking approach emphasizes the universality of the thinking process, which can be expressed in many formal languages, and thus facilitates the incorporation of favourite skills and activities into an engagement with conservation. Using tools for thinking can alter both the content and delivery of conservation education. We have listed the tools in the order in which they are likely to be developed, from the simplest and most basic to those relying on the integration of prior tools (Table 1). Thus we would recommend employing only the first few tools with young children and reserving tools such as dimensional thinking, modelling, transforming and synthesizing for older children and adults. Although scientists use many and sometimes all of the tools for thinking, a study has suggested that only a few of the tools (observing, abstracting, patterning and analogizing) are explicitly taught in science textbooks (Lownds et al., 2010). Imaging, dimensional thinking, modelling, transforming and synthesizing are sometimes present implicitly in the form of illustrations but are rarely explicit. Body thinking, empathizing and playing are often rejected as being subjective and therefore non-scientific but they may be useful for amateur engagement with nature and for professional scientists. Fig. 2 is a summary of a workshop incorporating body thinking and empathy, intended for 588 M. Root-Bernstein et al. © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core advanced undergraduates or graduate students with existing competence in mathematical ecology. Finally, tools for thinking can be used to evaluate the cognitive practices of students and the strengths and weak- nesses of conservation education programmes. A good programme will incorporate many of the tools explicitly and student outcomes may be structured to demonstrate mastery within particular lessons and transfer of learning outcomes to other contexts. We have noted a predominant use of certain tools by naturalists, biologists and conservationists: observation, empathy, pattern recognition and formation, dimensional thinking, modelling and synthesis. There are fewer reports of the use of imaging, abstracting, analogizing, body thinking, playing and transforming among this group. As tool use is problem-specific, what problems are we over- looking or failing to solve by not using these tools to their potential? What new chapters in the advancement of Animal Signs Using your Observing, Pa�ern Recogni�on and Imaging Tools How to observe: Walk slowly, using all your senses. Take notes of what you hear, smell, taste, and feel. Draw or photograph animal signs you see. How to recognize pa�erns: Review your notes. Sort them and reorganize them. What associa�ons or common traits do you find in the signs? How to image: Imagine the images, sounds, feelings, etc. when the sign was formed. Ac�vity: Understanding animal signs 1. Use your observing skills and take note of any nests, burrows, pits, trails, footprints, faeces, eggs, bones, feathers, and marks that might be made by animals. 2. Search for pa�erns; for example, for the signs above you could ask ‘Are these signs made in the same way? Are they found near the same vegeta�on, the same footprint, etc. or different ones? Are they clustered? Are they the same size?’ Make a collage, diagram or taxonomy showing your pa�erns. 3. Now image how these animal signs might have been formed. What animal do you think made each sign? What was it doing when it made the sign? When did it happen? Write a short story imaging how your favourite sign was formed. Example sign 1 Example sign 2 FIG. 1 An activity to train school students to use the tools of observation, pattern recognition and imaging (adapted from NatureMapping Foundation). Tools for thinking in conservation 589 © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core Advanced workshop in thinking tools and foraging ecology: Using mul�ple tools in dance and mathema�cal modelling Stage 1: Observing, body thinking, empathizing GOAL: a shape and movement repertoire of body observa�ons Step 1. Observe a foraging animal (live or video). What body shapes, movements and rhythms do you observe? Step 2. Imagine you are the animal foraging. Imitate the body shapes, movements and rhythms you observed. Stage 2: Abstrac�ng and pa�ern forming GOAL: a number of movement and shape phrases describing the essence of the body observa�on experience Step 1. Select up to five observa�ons as the essence of your observa�on experience. Explore how they fit together. Step 2. Organize your abstracted shapes and movements into two phrases, one short (3–5 movements) and one long (5–7 movements). Decide how o�en to repeat each and in what order. Does this represent the essence of the foraging you observed? Stage 3: Transforming and modelling GOAL: a mathema�cal model of foraging ecology Step 1. Find a partner. Observe them performing their dance. Step 2. Abstract the essence of what you see and feel in the observed dance. What units do you see? What are their rela�onships? Are �me and space important? Step 3. Here is where you use the mathema�cal modelling skills that you already possess. Pa�ern the abstracted units and rela�onships into a mathema�cal equa�on. Plot the behaviour of the model. Does the model represent the foraging dance? Reflec�on • How does your model differ from other par�cipants’ models? • Do you think you lost or gained informa�on through the transforma�on? • What would happen if you wrote a story or made a moving sculpture instead of composing a dance in Stage 2? • Can you skip the abstrac�ng and pa�ern-forming steps? FIG. 2 A workshop for undergraduate or graduate ecology students who already have well-developed mathematical skills. The use of dance to express observations about animal foraging helps to make students more aware of the steps prior to model building and may suggest new ways to think about their subject (adapted from Root-Bernstein & Overby, 2012). 590 M. Root-Bernstein et al. © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core conservation and the social relationship to nature could be opened by focusing on these neglected tools for thinking in conservation education and outreach? Acknowledgements Meredith Root-Bernstein was supported by a graduate fellowship from CONICYT (no. 63105446) and a post- doctoral fellowship from FONDECYT (no. 3130336) during the preparation of this article. References ABADIE, J.C., ANDRADE, C., MACHON, N. & PORCHER, E. (2008) On the use of parataxonomy in biodiversity monitoring: a case study on wild flora. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3485–3500. ALIAS, M., BLACK, T.R. & GRAY, D.E. (2002) Effect of instructions on spatial visualization ability in civil engineering students. International Education Journal, 3, 1–12. ASCIONE, F.R. (1997) Humane education research: evaluating efforts to encourage children’s kindness and caring toward animals. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 123, 59–77. BAARS, B.J. & FRANKLIN, S. (2003) How conscious experience and working memory interact. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 168–172. BEERMANN, J., TETZLAFF, R., BRUCKNER, T., SCHÖEBINGER, M., MÜLLER-STICH, B.P., GUTT, C.N. et al. (2010) Three-dimensional visualization improves understanding of surgical liver anatomy. Medical Education, 44, 936–940. BENNEDSEN, J. & CASPERSEN, M.E. (2008) Abstraction ability as an indicator of success for learning computing science? In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, pp. 15–26. ACM, New York, USA. BORDUIN, B.J., BORDUIN, C.M. & MANLEY, C.M. (1994) The use of imagery training to improve reading comprehension of second graders. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 115–118. BURKHARDT, JR, R.W. (2005) Patterns of Behaviour: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the Founding of Ethology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. BURTON, G.M. (1982) Patterning: powerful play. School Science and Mathematics, 82, 39–44. CHECKOVICH, B.H. & STERLING, D.R. (2001) Oh say can you see? Science and Children, 38, 32–35. CLEEREMANS, A. & JIMÉNEZ, L. (2002) Implicit learning and consciousness: a graded, dynamic perspective. In Implicit Learning and Consciousness: An Empirical, Computational and Philosophical Consensus in the Making? (eds R.M. French & A. Cleeremans), pp. S.1–S.40. Psychology Press, Hove, UK. COLBURN, B.A. (2009) Show Me a Picture, Tell Me a Story: An Introduction to Graphs for the Analysis of Ecological Data from Schoolyard Science Research Studies. Harvard Forest Schoolyard Ecology Programme. Harvard Forest, Petersham, USA. COLL, R.K., FRANCE, B. & TAYLOR, I. (2005) The role of models and analogies in science education: implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 183–198. DRUMMOND, H.P. & SELVARATNAM, M. (2009) Intellectual skills needed for the effective learning and application of chemical knowledge. South African Journal of Chemistry, 62, 179–184. DRUYAN, S. (1997) Effect of the kinaesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1083–1099. DUPRÉ, J. (1999) Are whales fish? In Folkbiology (eds D.L. Medin & S. Atran), pp. 461–476. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA. DURRELL, G. (1956) My Family and Other Animals. Penguin Books, New York, USA. DVORNICH, K., PETERSEN, D. & CLARKSON, K. (2011) Fostering Outdoor Observation Skills. Preparing Children for Outdoor Science and Recreation. Http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/ConEd-Fostering- Outdoor-Observation-Skills.pdf [accessed November 2012]. EWERT, A., PLACE, G. & SIBTHORP, J. (2005) Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27, 225–219. EWING, H., HOGAN, K., KEESING, F., BUGMANN, H., BERKOWITZ, A.R., GROSS, L. et al. (2003) The role of modelling in undergraduate education. In Models in Ecosystem Science (eds C.D. Canham, J.J. Cole & W.K. Lauenroth), pp. 413–427. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. FU, Q., FU, X. & DIENES, Z. (2007) Implicit sequence learning and conscious awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 185–202. GALILI, I. (2009) Thought experiments: determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18, 1–23. GARDNER, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, New York, USA. GARDNER, H. (1999) Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, New York, USA. GLYNN, S.M. (1991) Explaining science concepts: a teaching- with-analogies model. In The Psychology of Learning Science (eds S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany & B.K. Britton), pp. 219–240. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, USA. GOODALL, J. (1986) The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behaviour. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA. HAIDER, H., EICHLER, A. & LANGE, T. (2011) An old problem: how can we distinguish between conscious and unconscious knowledge acquired in an implicit learning task? Consciousness and Cognition 20, 658–672. HARRISON, A.G. & TREAGUST, D.F. (1994) Science analogies. Science Teacher, 61, 40–43. HAWAII ARTS ALLIANCE (2006) An Essential Arts Toolkit. Http://arts. k12.hi.us/ [accessed November 2012]. HAYES, M.A. (2009) Into the field: naturalistic education and the future of conservation. Conservation Biology, 23, 1075–1079. JACOBSON, S.K., MCDUFF, M.D. & MONROE, M.C. (2006) Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. JACOBY, L.L. (1991) A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541. KASTENS, K.A. & ISHIKAWA, T. (2006) Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: a cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. In Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth (eds C.A. Manduka & D.W. Mogk). pp. 53–57. The Geological Society of America, Boulder, USA. KELLAM, N.N., WALTHER, J., COSTANTINO, T. & CRAMOND, B. (2013) Integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio. Advances in Engineering Education, 3, 1–30. LEAR, L. (2007) Introduction. In Under the Sea-Wind (R. Carson). Penguin Books, New York, USA. LEVIN, S.A. (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology, 73, 1943–1967. LOMOLINO, M.V., SAX, D.F. & BROWN, J.H. (eds) (2004) Foundations of Biogeography: Classic Papers with Commentaries. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. LORENZ, K.Z. (1952) King Solomon’s Ring. Signet, New York, USA. Tools for thinking in conservation 591 © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/ConEd-Fostering-Outdoor-Observation-Skills.pdf http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/ConEd-Fostering-Outdoor-Observation-Skills.pdf http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/ConEd-Fostering-Outdoor-Observation-Skills.pdf http://arts.k12.hi.us/ http://arts.k12.hi.us/ http://arts.k12.hi.us/ https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core LORIMER, H. (2006) Herding memories of humans and animals. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 497–518. LORIMER, J. (2007) Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25, 911–932. LORIMER, J. (2008) Counting corncrakes: the affective science of the UK corncrake census. Social Studies of Science, 38, 377–405. LOUV, R. (2008) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, USA. LOWNDS, N., POFF, K., ROOT-BERNSTEIN, M. & ROOT-BERNSTEIN, R. (2010) Thinking tools, science curricula, and cultural learning: does the disconnect promote poor performance by minorities in STEM subjects? SACNAS News, 12, 8–9. LUMENELLO, S. (2005) The rarest of the rare: stories behind the treasures of Harvard’s Museum of Natural History. Colloquy: Alumni Quarterly, 2–4, 8–9. MARITI, C., PAPI, F., MENGOLI, M., MORETTI, G., MARTELLI, F. & GAZZANO, A. (2011) Improvement in children’s humaneness toward nonhuman animals through a project of educational anthrozoology. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6, 12–20. MISHRA, P., KOEHLER, M.J. & HENRIKSEN, D. (2011) The seven transdisciplinary habits of mind: extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, March–April, 22–28. MISHRA, P. et al. (2012) Sparks of Creativity: A Multimedia Book Project. Http://deep-play.com/sparks/ [accessed November 2012]. MORRIS, D. (1979) Animal Days. William Morrow, New York, USA. MUIR, J. (1954) The Wilderness World of John Muir: A Selection from his Collected Work (ed. E.W. Teale). Houghton Mifflin, New York, USA. MUSANTE, S. (2006) Strategies for Teaching Modelling to Students. Http://www.aibs.org/eye-on-education/eye_on_education_2006_ 04.html [accessed November 2012]. NABOKOV, V. (1947) Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, USA. NATUREMAPPING FOUNDATION Washington NatureMapping Program. Http://www.naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/ [accessed November 2012]. NSF (NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION) (2000) Inquiry: Thoughts, Views and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom. Http://www.nsf.gov/ pubs/2000/nsf99148 [accessed November 2012]. NOSS, R.F. (1997) The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists. Conservation Biology, 11, 1267–1269. ORR, D.W. (1999) Education, careers, and callings: the practice of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13, 1242–1245. PASNAK, R., BROWN, K., KURKJIAN, M., MATTRAN, K., TRIANA, E. & YAMAMOTA, N. (1987) Cognitive gains through training on classification, seriation, and conservation. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 113, 293–321. PEACE, A.J. (2005) Loving Leviathan: the discourse of whale-watching in Australian ecotourism. In Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human–Animal Intimacies (ed. J. Knight). BERG, Oxford, UK. PIANKA, E.R. & HORN, H.S. (2005) Ecology’s legacy from Robert MacArthur. In Ecological Paradigms Lost: Routes of Theory Change (eds K. Cuddington & B.E. Beisner), pp. 213–232. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, USA. RIESS, H., KELLEY, J.M., BAILEY, R.W., DUNN, E.J. & PHILLIPS, M. (2012) Empathy training for resident physicians: a randomized controlled trial of a neuroscience-informed curriculum. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 1280–1286. ROBSON, D. (2011) Your clever body: thinking from head to toe. New Scientist, 2834, 34–38. ROOT-BERNSTEIN, M., DOUGLAS, L., SMITH, A. & VERÍSSIMO, D. (2013) Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 1577–1589. ROOT-BERNSTEIN, M. & OVERBY, L. (2012) Thinking Tools and the Multi-disciplinary Imagination: Exploring Abstraction in Dance and Creative Writing. Workshop developed for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington, DC, USA. ROOT-BERNSTEIN, M.M. & ROOT-BERNSTEIN, R.S. (2005) Body thinking beyond dance: a tools for thinking approach. In Dance: Current Selected Research, Volume 5 (eds L. Overby & B. Lepczyk), pp. 173–202. AMS Press, New York, USA. ROOT-BERNSTEIN, R.S. (1991) Teaching abstracting in an integrated art and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 13, 85–90. ROOT-BERNSTEIN, R.S. (2005) Desmond Morris’s two spheres. Leonardo, 38, 319–322. ROOT-BERNSTEIN, R.S. & ROOT-BERNSTEIN, M.M. (1999) Sparks of Genius. Houghton Mifflin, New York, USA. SAPOLSKY, R.M. (2001) A Primate’s Memoir: A Neuroscientist’s Unconventional Life Among the Baboons. Simon & Schuster, New York, USA. SERVAIS, V. (2005) Enchanting dolphins: an analysis of human– dolphin encounters. In Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human–Animal Intimacies (ed. J. Knight), pp. 211–230. Berg, Oxford, UK. SILVIA, E.M. (1977) Patterning: an aid to teaching math skills. School Science and Mathematics, 77, 567–577. SORBY, S. (2009) Developing spatial cognitive skills among middle school students. Cognitive Processes, 10 (Suppl. 2), S312–S315. STIEFF, M. (2011) When is a molecule three dimensional? A task- specific role for imagistic reasoning in advanced chemistry. Science Education, 95, 310–336. THOREAU, H.D. (2009) The Journal 1837–1861 (ed. D. Searls). The New York Review of Books, New York, USA. TURNER, S. (2003) Review of Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations. The Trumpeter, 19, 119–122. WELDEN, C.W. (1999) Using spreadsheets to teach ecological modelling. ESA Bulletin, 80, 64–67. WHITE, P.A. (1988) Knowing more about what we can tell: ‘introspective access’ and causal report accuracy 10 years later. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 13–45. WHITTAKER, R.J., ARAÚJO, M.B., JEPSON, P., LADLE, R.J., WATSON, J. E.M. & WILLIS, K.J. (2005) Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Diversity and Distributions, 11, 3–23. WILSON, E.O. (1994) Naturalist. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. WILSON, E.O. & HUTCHINSON, G.E. (1989) Robert Helmer MacArthur: Biographical Memoirs. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA. WILSON, T.D. & DUNN, E.W. (2004) Self-knowledge: its limits, value and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–26. Biographical sketches ME R E D I T H RO O T-BE R N S T E I N researches interactions between an- imal behaviour and ecosystems and the ethnography of human– nonhuman relationships. MI C H E L E RO O T-BE R N S T E I N, a historian and poet, researches the invention of imaginary worlds by children and adults. She is a Kennedy Center teaching artist and has presented numerous workshops on tools for thinking for educators. RO B E R T RO O T-BE R N S T E I N researches the evolution of physiological control systems and autoimmune diseases. 592 M. Root-Bernstein et al. © 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 584–592 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 01:00:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http://deep-play.com/sparks/ http://deep-play.com/sparks/ http://www.aibs.org/eye-on-education/eye_on_education_2006_04.html http://www.aibs.org/eye-on-education/eye_on_education_2006_04.html http://www.aibs.org/eye-on-education/eye_on_education_2006_04.html http://www.naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/ http://www.naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/ http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000100 https://www.cambridge.org/core