Publications by Colleges and Departments (MSU - Bozeman)
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/3
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item A hypothetico‐deductive theory of science and learning(Wiley, 2023-08) Kalinowski, Steven T.; Pelakh, AvitalThis article presents a simple, cognitive theory of science and learning. The first section of the paper develops the theory's two main propositions: (i) A wide range of scientific activities rely heavily on one type of reasoning, hypothetical thinking, and (ii) This type of reasoning is also useful to students for learning science content. The second section of the paper presents a taxonomy of multiple‐choice questions that use hypothetical thinking and the third section of the paper tests the theory using data from a college biology course. As expected by the theory, student responses to 24 scientific reasoning questions were consistent with a one‐dimensional psychometric construct. Student responses to the scientific reasoning questions explained 36% of the variance in exam grades. Several directions for additional research are identified, including studying the psychometric structure of scientific thinking in more detail, performing randomized, controlled experiments to demonstrate a causal relationship between scientific thinking and learning, and identifying the relative contribution of other factors to success in college.Item Elegant conservation: reimagining protected area stewardship in the 21st century(Resilience Alliance, Inc., 2023-01) Bobowski, Ben; Fiege, MarkWe present an approach to the conservation of protected areas that aligns cultural truths with scientific truths to increase community capacity for conservation. This alignment, which we call elegant conservation, asks protected area managers to reimagine how conservation can be inclusive of cultures and subcultures whose members value protected areas, but not in the same way. Reimagining how protected area managers approach conservation requires them to observe closely and holistically, with fresh eyes, human consciousness and behavior as well as relationships between people and between people and nature. Our approach connects the humanities, Western sciences, and other forms of knowledge, including Indigenous knowledge, in a manner that more sustainably builds social support for conservation. We first offer a heuristic of seven conditions that protected area managers can analyze when sizing up conservation issues and the people involved. We then propose a heuristic of five human tendencies—elements of human consciousness—that can help protected area managers and their partners organize constructive responses to any conservation issue. Our model of elegant conservation offers a pragmatic, holistic, inclusive alternative to top-down, reductive management approaches and is an outgrowth of modern American intellectual history, especially since the end of the Cold War, ca. 1989–1990. Elegant conservation presents an opportunity to help people find common ground and move protected area management beyond its origins in settler colonialism at a time of national and planetary crisis.Item A Fishy Story Promoting a False Dichotomy to Policy-Makers: It Is Not Freshwater vs. Marine Aquaculture(Informa UK Limited, 2021-12) Costa-Pierce, Barry Antonio; Bockus, Abigail B.; Buck, Bela H.; van den Burg, Sander W. K.; Chopin, ThierryA recent publication by Belton et al. raises points for policy-makers and scientists to consider with respect to the future of aquaculture making recommendations on policies and investments in systems and areas of the world where aquaculture can contribute most. Belton et al. take an ‘us versus them’ approach separating aquaculture by economics, livelihood choices, and water salinity. They conclude “that marine finfish aquaculture in offshore environments will confront economic, biophysical, and technological limitations that hinder its growth and prevent it from contributing significantly to global food and nutrition security.” They argue that land-based freshwater aquaculture is a more favorable production strategy than ocean/marine aquaculture; they disagree with government and non-governmental organizations spatial planning efforts that add new aquaculture to existing ocean uses; they advocate for open commons for wild fisheries as opposed to aquaculture; and they oppose ‘open ocean’ aquaculture and other types of industrial, capital-intensive, ‘carnivorous’ fish aquaculture. They discredit marine aquaculture rather than explain how all aquaculture sectors are significantly more efficient and sustainable for the future of food than nearly all land-based animal protein alternatives. As an interdisciplinary group of scientists who work in marine aquaculture, we disagree with both the biased analyses and the advocacy presented by Belton et al. Marine aquaculture is growing and is already making a significant contribution to economies and peoples worldwide. None of the concerns Belton et al. raise are new, but their stark statement that farming fish in the sea cannot ‘nourish the world’ misses the mark, and policy-makers would be wrong to follow their misinformed recommendations.