Category: Jigsaw Prep

Article Title & Authors: Native Perspectives from a Focus Group Study. Smythe et al.

1. What is the purpose/goal of this study? (at least 2 sentences)
   The purpose of this study is to get the perspectives of Native Americans on mixing Western science and traditional knowledge. The focus groups featured in this study consist of teachers and students from a STEM conference.
2. Why is this issue significant/why do we care? (at least 2 sentences)
   This issue is significant because Western science mainly prioritizes facts and evidence, while Traditional Knowledge focuses on connecting with nature. Combining these two methods could further a lot of efforts around climate change and sustainability.
3. What words/vocab do you need to know to make this make sense? Define them here. (at least 3 terms).
   Traditional Knowledge comes from Indigenous cultures and centers around a connection with the land and nature itself. Western science is a system of knowledge that focuses on experimentation and observations. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we know what we know.
4. What approach are they taking in this study? (Describe the specific qualitative or quantitative methods used, at least 3 sentences). The authors used a qualitative approach in this study. Two focus groups were conducted with participants from STEM conferences. These focus group sessions were then transcribed and analyzed.
5. What are the results of the study? Explain what they found when they compared or measured different variables. If there are figures – write a sentence summarizing each figure/table. (at least 3 sentences).
   The focus groups explained how they saw both Western science and Traditional Knowledge as community-oriented tools for reform. They also believed that the implementation of these two complementary methods could be good for cultural identity and even classroom engagement. Unfortunately, there is the issue of Traditional Knowledge being misappropriated during this process.
6. Does the data make sense based on your experiences? Explain why or why not. (at least 2 sentences)
   I have done research on the implementation of hybrid teaching methods, and the results do seem to line up with what I have found. Many people advocating for active learning strategies suggests creating a hybrid of passive and active strategies, which matches the results of this article.
7. How is this pushing the field forward and helping society? (at least 2 sentences)
   With the integration of these two methods, the process of conducting research could be reformed as a whole, changing the way many people look at science. On top of that, this pushes a strong community-centric ideology, allowing for more equality in issues such as climate change.

Article Title & Authors: Amazonian vegetation types and indigenous lands threatened by upcoming climate change: Forecast impact for Brazilian biomes. Arruda et al.

1. What is the purpose/goal of this study? (at least 2 sentences)
   The purpose of this study is to estimate how much natural biomes in Brazil will change in response to future changes in climate. The majority of the biomes in the study are located in the Amazon, where the climate is consistently changing.
2. Why is this issue significant/why do we care? (at least 2 sentences)
   Climate extremes that are unprepared for could cause biodiverse biomes, like the Amazon, to lose several species and vegetation. These effects can also apply to places far outside of South America if strategies are not put in place to prepare for these issues.
3. What words/vocab do you need to know to make this make sense? Define them here. (at least 3 terms).
   Biomes are ecological areas on Earth’s surface with a certain climate, vegetation, and animals. Anthropogenic pressure is stress on the environment caused by issues like deforestation, agriculture, and pollution. Ecological niche modeling is a method used to predict the distribution of species based on the conditions in their environment.
4. What approach are they taking in this study? (Describe the specific qualitative or quantitative methods used, at least 3 sentences). The authors of this article mostly used models to predict changes in plants. A few of these models involved mapping out biomes alongside indigenous territories. These models were all set to continue until the year 2070.
5. What are the results of the study? Explain what they found when they compared or measured different variables. If there are figures – write a sentence summarizing each figure/table. (at least 3 sentences).
   The authors found that future climate changes in the Amazon will cause a decrease in biodiversity overtime. A major cause is the lack of a habitat to support these animals. Along with that, these climate changes cause an environment to become more vulnerable to further stressors.
6. Does the data make sense based on your experiences? Explain why or why not. (at least 2 sentences)
   Yes, the results of this study make sense to me, simply because of how fragile natural ecosystems already are. The survival of multiple species often relies on one or two organisms, which explains why these ecosystems are so sensitive when it comes to climate change.
7. How is this pushing the field forward and helping society? (at least 2 sentences)
   The information from this study lets us know that we need to prepare for the effects of climate change before we start to lose hundreds or thousands of organisms. If we do not prepare now, then the problem will not be the loss of organisms, but the loss of entire ecosystems.

What is the purpose/goal of this study?

The goal of this study is to evaluate the effects of human foraging on prey species and how to minimize those affects.

Why is this issue significant/why do we care?

This problem is important because the modern use of technology in hunting is only
accelerating the extinction of animals at the bottom of the food chain. Along with that, prey species already must face threats from animals in their natural habitat. Over time, these issues can cause an entire species to die out.

What words/vocab do you need to know to make this make sense?

Population ecology is the study of how populations change over time. Intrinsic rate of increase (r) is a measure of how quickly a species can grow in number. Carrying capacity (K) is the maximum population size that an environment can hold. Density compensation is when a species increases its reproductive rate because of low population density. Ecological extinction is when a species becomes so rare that it is not important to its ecosystem.

What approach are they taking in this study?

The authors built a dynamic simulation to mimic interactions between human foragers and multiple prey species. Each scenario varied the number and characteristics of prey species and tracked outcomes like human population size, prey persistence, and net energy gain.

What are the results of the study?

The models used showed that most forager-prey systems are able to stabilize without specific conservation efforts being made. It was found that the major factors in the survival of prey species are their intrinsic rate of increase and the diversity of resources available to them.

Does the data make sense based on your experiences?

I am not certain, just because I have never really done research on animal habits.
However, I would expect that conservation actions would be the only answer to helping a prey species survive, which make the results rather surprising to me.

How is this pushing the field forward and helping society?

It integrates optimal foraging theory with population ecology, creating an effective model for simulating long-term human-prey dynamics. This articles also introduces the idea of factoring in both prey vulnerability and human behavior in order to ensure prey survival.

What is the purpose/goal of this study?

The goal of this study is to shift society away from a human-centered focus and towards a worldview that favors all life.

Why is this issue significant/why do we care?

Many of the issues that we deal with in our modern society, like pollution, is because of the policies put in place. The policies that exist within the majority of the world are all based on allowing humankind to prosper, while nature suffers. The authors of this article argue that prioritizing all life will be a key factor in healing the world that we have damaged for so long.

What words/vocab do you need to know to make this make sense?

Anthropocentrism is the idea that humankind is superior to other animals and nature itself. Egocentrism is the idea that all life has inherent value despite what the species may or may not be able to provide to others. Biophilia is a deep connection between humans and nature. Intrinsic value is the worth a person or thing has despite any service they may provide.

What approach are they taking in this study?

The authors mainly examine the ethics of policies that exist in society. They explore how anthropocentric policies have caused the natural world to decay over time, while egocentric ideas have taken a backseat in the modern day. This also leads them to go into depth about the history of human-centered views in nature policies to build a case for policies that prioritize all life.

What are the results of the study?

The authors come to the conclusion that recognizing the intrinsic value of nature and its creatures is the only way to yield actual results in the fight for biodiversity conservation. They realize how human-centered values, which currently dominate many of the conservation policies, have only hurt the planet and many of its natural ecosystems. However, they understand how there are proposals for nature rights, with a study confirming over half of conservationists agreeing with these views. These new findings only further fuel the authors’ idea that the implementation of egocentric views in the place of anthropocentric views is the best plan for preserving natural ecosystems.

Does the data make sense based on your experiences?

While I did expect anthropocentric worldviews to be the driving force for issues such as pollution, I did not expect egocentrism to be as popular as the authors state it is. One survey the authors provide is that 79% of conservationists argue that nature should be conserved for its own sake. I would have thought that the idea of nature having intrinsic value would have been less popular in our society.

How is this pushing the field forward and helping society?

This article is a perfect explanation on why nature needs to be preserved. It also gives a great solution that starts with a mindset and not a full-on plan of action. The only problem is that these new policies must be implemented carefully in order to avoid completely losing focus on human needs.