Introduction

Environmental science is a broad, interdisciplinary field integrating aspects of biology, chemistry, earth science, geology, and social sciences. Both holistic and reductionist, environmental science plays an increasing role in inquiry into the world around us and in efforts to manage society and promote sustainability. Mastery of basic science concepts and reasoning are therefore necessary for students to understand the interactions of different components in an environmental system.

How do we identify and assess the learning that occurs in introductory environmental science courses? How do we determine whether students understand the concept of biogeochemical cycling (or “nutrient cycling”) and know how to analyze it scientifically? Assessment of environmental science learning can be achieved through the use of pre- and post-testing, but of what type and nature?

Physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines have standardized pre- and post-tests, for example Energy Concept Inventory, Energy Concept Surveys; Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes et al. 1992); the Geoscience Content Inventory  (Libarkin and Anderson 2005); the Mechanics Baseline Test; Biology Attitudes, Skills, & Knowledge Survey (BASKS); and the Chemistry Concept Inventory (Banta et al. 1996; Walvoord and Anderson 1998). Broad science knowledge assessments also exist, notably the Views About Science Survey (Haloun and Hestenes 1998). Some academic institutions have developed their own general science literacy assessment tool for incoming freshmen (e.g., the University of Pennsylvania [Waldron et al. 2001]).  The literature abounds with information on science literacy. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) are leaders in developing benchmarks for scientific literacy (AAAS 1993; www.NSTA.org).

Perhaps the closest standardized testing instrument for environmental science is the Student Ecology Assessment (SEA). Lisowski and Disinger (1991) use SEA to focus on ecology concepts. The SEA consists of 40 items in eight concept clusters; items progress from concrete to abstract, from familiar to unfamiliar, and from fact-based (simple recall) to higher-order thinking questions. Although developed principally for testing understanding of trophic ecology (plant-animal feeding relationships), this instrument can be used in most ecology or environmental science classes, even though it does not address all aspects of environmental science (for example, earth science, waste management, public policy).

The Environmental Literacy Council provides an on-line test bank that can be used for assessment (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/580.html).  Results of this and other instruments suggest that the average person’s environmental knowledge is not as strong as he or she thinks (Robinson and Crowther 2001). Environmental knowledge assessment may help us to determine what additional learning needs to be done in creating an environmentally literate citizenry—an important public policy task (Bowers 1996).  However, a major reason for assessing environmental knowledge is to improve teaching. If we can assess how students conceptualize an ecosystem at the start of a course, then we can measure the difference at the end of the course. Additionally, understanding what knowledge they possess at the start of a course will help us expand their knowledge base in a manner tailored to their initial understandings and their needs.

The challenge lies in deriving a rapid assessment tool that will help determine abilities to conceptualize and that also has comparative and predictive value.  It is quite common in environmental science courses to ask students to draw an ecosystem—it can be done as an exam question, as homework, or as an in-class project.  Virtually all environmental science textbooks contain illustrations of ecosystems.  An environmental laboratory manual we frequently use (Wagner and Sanford 2010) asks students to draw an ecosystem diagram as one of the assignments. But what about examining how the students’ drawings illustrate growth in knowledge and understanding—their ability to use knowledge gained and to communicate ecological relationships in a model?  We needed an instrument that provided immediate information, could be contained on one page, would not take a lot of class time, and that did not look like a test. The draw-an-ecosystem instrument meets those criteria, but there is a price: the difficulty of quantifying and comparing the drawings. It seemed a worthwhile challenge to work those bugs out, and even if that proved to be impossible, the students themselves could see the increased ecological sophistication of their drawings and would experience positive feedback from the change.

The Draw-an-Ecosystem Approach

Our approach is to use a pre-test and post-test in which students draw and label an ecosystem, showing interactions, terms, and concepts (Figure 1 and Figure 2).  The assignment is open-ended. We hand out a page with a blank square on it and the following directions:

Date_______. Course ________. Please draw an ecosystem in the space below. It can be any ecosystem. Label ecosystem processes and concepts in your diagram. Take about 15 or 20 minutes. This will not be graded, it isn’t an art assignment, and the results will be kept anonymous.

We tried out this assessment in our graduate summer course in environmental science for sixth–eighth grade teachers (even short-term courses can produce a change in environmental knowledge according to Bogner and Wiseman [2004]) and in our Introduction to Environmental Science course.  We developed a rubric to evaluate and score the pre- and post-test ecosystem diagrams drawn by students.  The rubric included eight categories, each with a 0–3 score, where 0 represented no display of that category and 3 represents a comprehensive response. The categories, labeled A-H, cover ecosystem aspects (listed below). Certainly, not all eight categories are equal, nor should they be equally rated or represented; however, since we are examining pre- and post-course conceptualization of ecosystems, the comparative value of the scoring remains, and we decided it was reasonable to sum the category scores for a final score. Accordingly, the maximum possible score was 24. The scores were then compiled and analyzed to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in pre- and post-test scoring.

To interpret the student ecosystem diagrams, we examine the following factors:

• Presentation of the different spheres (hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, and cultural sphere)
• Proportional representation of species and communities
• Recognition of multiple forms of habitat and niche
• Biodiversity
• Exotic/invasive species
• Terminology
• Food chain/web
• Recognition of scale (micro through macro)
• Biogeochemical (nutrient) cycles
• Earth system processes
• Energy input and throughput
• Positive and negative feedback mechanisms
• Biological and abiotic interactions and exchanges
• Driving forces for change and stability (dynamics)

Initially we used the above factors as a guide in interpreting the drawings and comparing the pre-test and post-test drawings for each student—we did not compare one student’s work with another. However, if the ecosystem test can become a valid and reliable standardized assessment, then comparison makes sense and will inform how an entire course makes a difference in student learning rather than just the progress of an individual student.  Accordingly, we developed a scoring rubric (Table 1).

In determining the categories and weights for each scoring rubric, we consulted three other environmental science faculty with experience in teaching an introductory environmental science course. We sought a scale for which both beginners and professionals would achieve measurably distinct scores. To ensure objectivity, we scored multiple examples before settling on the final rubric elements and weights.  This is similar to the norming approach used by the College Board in scoring Advanced Placement (AP) Environmental Science exams. The final scores reflect a student’s holistic understanding of ecosystems.  The maximum score for the pre- and post-test is the same, 3 points x 8 categories = 24.  Analysis of pre- and post-course test scores using a Student’s t-test for independence, with separate variance estimates for pre-test and post-test groups, was conducted using Statistica v.10 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK).  Analysis revealed a significant enhancement of students’ abilities to communicate their understanding of ecological concepts (t = -10.77, df = 364, p < 0.001) (Figure 3).  We also tested the scoring system on a small group of workshop participants at the New England Environmental Education Alliance conference (October 2014). Participants included members of their state’s respective environmental education association, plus  a mixture of grade school teachers and non-formal educators (with environmental education equivalent to or higher than that achieved by the post-course group of students).  The scores by these educators averaged 13 and ranged between 10 and 15.

Discussion

The draw-an-ecosystem test provides an open-ended but structure-bounded means to gauge a person’s understanding about ecosystems. We measured change between the first week of a semester-long environmental science course (four credits of lecture and lab) and the last week. The change showed an approximate doubling of scores. The drawings provide clues to where the students are for their starting points and provide a way to indicate possible misconceptions about science or the environment—misconceptions that may need to be cleared up for proper learning. Thus, the drawings can be a useful diagnostic tool for both the student and the teacher. They may also give insight into geographical, cultural, or social biases. For example, many ecosystem drawings were of ponds, not surprising given the water-rich environment of Maine.  None of the over 300 drawings were of desert ecosystems, yet such might be conceptually more common for people from an arid region such as the Southwest.  Another aspect of the sample ecosystem drawings is that they tend to be common rather than exotic, leading one to wonder whether we care for what we do not know, or if perhaps the opposite is true—a “familiarity breeds contempt” scenario in which the vernacular environment is seen as less important due to its commonality. A related question is whether or not the ecosystems selected for portrayal change as a result of education. Not only might students think more deeply about ecosystems, but perhaps they are more aware of and value the greater variety of them.

Another benefit of the ecosystem drawing is that it adds another dimension to the learning process. It provides a different way of assimilating and processing information, although according to our sample, artists tend to score about the same as those with fewer artistic skills, suggesting that perhaps a drawing assignment validates their supposedly lesser artistic abilities. Certainly, an exercise that incorporates multiple modes of representation, expression, and engagement—such as drawing and writing—fits better with a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach; these modes are the three principles of UDL (Burgstahler and Cory 2008; Rose et al. 2005).

In the future, we may seek a way to reduce the large number of categories in the scoring system, especially if the test is to be used with younger age groups. We should also attain a more comprehensive method of assessing inter-rater agreement for scoring the drawings. We may also explore use of the ecosystem drawings as discussion starters for peer evaluation and collaborative learning. Ecosystem concepts seem to be a powerful way of capturing and reflecting student thinking about environmental settings as dynamic systems.

Acknowledgements

Maine Mathematics and Science Teaching Excellence Collaborative (MMSTEC), an NSF-funded program, inspired the initial idea of this paper. Professors Jeff Beaudry, Sarah Darhower, Bob Kuech, Travis Wagner, and Karen Wilson provided insight.

About the Authors

Robert M. Sanford is Professor and Chair of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Southern Maine. He is a SENCER Fellow and a co-director of SCI New England.

Joseph K. Staples teaches in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Southern Maine. He was recently appointed a SENCER Fellow.

Sarah A. Snowman works at L.L. Bean and is a recent graduate of the University of Southern Maine, where she majored in Business and minored in Environmental Sustainability.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1993. Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Banta, T.W., J.P. Lund, K.E. Black, and Frances W. Oblander, eds. 1996. Assessment in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bogner, F.X., and M. Wiseman. 2004. “Outdoor Ecology Education and Pupils’ Environmental Perception in Preservation and Utilization.” Science Education International 15 (1): 27–48.

Bowers, C.A. 1996. “The Cultural Dimensions of Ecological Literacy.” Journal of Environmental Education 27 (2): 5–11.

Burgstahler, S.E., and R.C. Cory. 2008. Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Environmental Literacy Council. Environmental Science Testbank. http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/580.html (accessed November 30, 2016).

Halloun, I., and D. Hestenes. 1998. “Interpreting VASS Dimensions and Profiles for Physics Students.” Science and Education 7 (6): 553–577.

Hestenes, D., M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer. 1992. “Force Concept Inventory.” The Physics Teacher 30: 141–158.

Libarkin, J.C., and S.W. Anderson. 2005. “Assessment of Learning in Entry-Level Geoscience Courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory.” Journal of Geoscience Education 53: 394–201.

Lisowski, M., and J.F. Disinger. 1991. “The Effect of Field-Based Instruction on Student Understandings of Ecological Concepts.” The Journal of Environmental Education 23 (1): 19–23.

Nuhfer, E.B., and D. Knipp. 2006. “The Use of a Knowledge Survey as an Indicator of Student Learning in an Introductory Biology Course.” Life Science Education 5 (4): 313–314.

Robinson, M., and D. Crowther. 2001. “Environmental Science Literacy in Science Education, Biology & Chemistry Majors.”   The American Biology Teacher 63 (1):9–14.

Rose, D.H., A. Meyer, and C. Hitchcock, eds. 2005. The Universally Designed Classroom: Accessible Curriculum and Digital Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maine Mathematics and Science Teaching Excellence Collaborative (MMSTEC). http://mmstec.umemat.maine.edu/MMSTEC/

Sexton, J.M., M. Viney, N. Kellogg, and P. Kennedy. 2005. “Alternative Assessment Method to Evaluate Middle and High School Teachers’ Understanding of Ecosystems.” Poster presented at the international conference for the Association for Education of Teachers in Science, Colorado Springs, CO.

Wagner, T., and R. Sanford. 2010. Environmental Science: Active Learning Laboratories and Applied Problem Sets. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Waldron, I., K. Peterman, and P. Allison. 2001. Science Survey for Evaluating Scientific Literacy at the University Level. University of Pennsylvania. (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/faculty/Teaching_Resources/home/sci_literacy_survey.html).

Walvoord, B.E., and V.J. Anderson. 1998. Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Download (PDF, 716KB)

Abstract

There are many published examples of strategies for using movies in science education, ranging from individual activities within a class to complete courses like “The Biology of Jurassic Park” at Hood College or “The Physics of Film” at the University of Central Florida (Borgwald and Schreiner 1994; Dubeck et al. 1988; Dubeck et al. 1995; Firooznia 2006). However, all of these strategies employ the use of the film within a formal classroom setting. This paper describes a collaborative program connecting hands-on science activities and new release motion pictures for informal science education in the innovative setting of a movie theater.

Initial Development

The Gateway Film Center (GFC) is a not-for-profit theater which includes eight screens, an art gallery, an upper level bar/ lounge area, a large lobby, and a lower level nautical-themed restaurant.  In 2015, the theater was recognized by the Sundance Art House Project as an independent theater of excellence based on “high standards including: quality programming, deep involvement with their local communities, strong financial standing, and recognition from their peers and their communities”(Madden 2015).

The GFC initially began experimenting with science-related supplemental programming through discussions following showings of the film Gravity and the TV series Cosmos in 2013. Based on the success of those events and a love of science by the GFC staff, the theater was interested in broadening that concept to a wider range of new release films. Beginning in 2014, we formed a collaboration with the GFC to develop supplemental science programming related to and in support of films shown at the theater. The mission of the Gateway Film Center includes an educational component, but this traditionally had referred to cultivating film appreciation, movie criticism, and production skills.  However, they also promoted their facility as a “learning lab” to promote curiosity and the seeking of new knowledge. We felt that this inspiring philosophy could also apply to science education and the use of the theater as an informal learning environment.  This initiative was founded on the goals of (1) integrating science engagement into a unique part of popular culture, (2) exposing moviegoers to real scientists and real science questions, (3) facilitating learning in an informal environment.

During the 2014 summer blockbuster season, we spearheaded a series of panel discussions hosted by ourselves and other scientists from our immediate area in conjunction with three new films.  As one journalist noted in a piece to promote these events, “You can’t spell ‘science fiction’ without ‘science'” (Madden 2014). Discussions were held after the 7 p.m. show on consecutive Fridays during the month of May and included topics such as “The Monstrosity of Science in Film” for the movie Godzilla and “The Science of Mutation” for X-Men: Days of Future Past (Figure 1).  The series concluded with a discussion on the relative importance of scientific fact or narrative development in motion pictures.  All panel discussions were held in the upper level lounge area of the theater and announced at the end of the film screening to encourage people to stay afterwards and attend. Most seats in the lounge area were usually filled for each panel and attendees were typically adults. Discussions were lively and included both expert commentary and audience questions to allow individuals the opportunity to directly interact with scientists around topics they were familiar with (e.g., comic books, superheroes, and monsters). When possible, we also supplemented panels with interactive displays such as a collection of insects for “The Hero: Fact vs. Fiction” discussion for the film The Amazing Spiderman 2.

Science and the Geek Sneaks

While the panel discussion format had proven successful, we wanted to develop science programming that was more interactive, broadly appealing to younger audiences/ families, and would extend across a larger range of time/ movie show times.  We expanded the scope of our efforts and began developing science-related content for the Geek Sneak series at the GFC.  Geek Sneaks are advertised as “the ultimate geeking-out atmosphere: parties, unique pre-show entertainment (think behind the scenes and rare footage) and themed drink and dining specials, with a group that loves the movie as much as you do!” Geek Sneaks are held the Thursday before a film opens nationwide and consist of multiple showings of that movie during the evening hours. As promotion for the Geek Sneaks highlighted special pre-show entertainment, this seemed like an excellent environment in which to incorporate an informal science education component.

Science activities related to each film are designed to be of short duration (completed in roughly ten minutes or less) and suitable for small groups of people (the typical sizes commonly attending movies). All activities are designed to be hands-on and focused around science content related to themes in the associated film. The GFC hosts multiple Geek Sneak programs throughout the year, but only those movies with science-related premises were deemed suitable for related science activities. In addition to our work, the GFC also arranged other science guests for some Geek Sneaks to further develop the educational message and promotion around some films.

The GFC has eight screens, and Geek Sneak science activities were typically hosted in the lobby area, which allowed them to be accessible to all moviegoers and not just those attending the Geek Sneak.  For example, the Marvel Studios movie Ant-Man opened in June of 2015 and tells the story of a superhero who has the ability to shrink in scale thanks to a super suit created by his scientist mentor. As a superhero fantasy, there are many components of the story that lack scientific accuracy, such as the suit’s implausible ability to shrink a person to insect size, Ant-Man’s superhuman strength, and the ability of a human to go sub-atomic and survive in the quantum realm at the film’s conclusion. However with a plot and hero based at least in part on real science principles, we felt that this movie offered an excellent opportunity to couple some related science activities. Two such activities were set up in the theater lobby from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. the evening of the Geek Sneak so that they were prominently visible to all theatergoers. The science activities for Ant-Man included one focused on air pressure as a mechanism to shrink or enlarge marshmallows using a hand pump or a vacuum chamber, as this most directly connects with the movie’s plot and the hero’s abilities (Figures 2 and 3). Each activity was accompanied by basic background information on the topic, which in this case included a brief definition of air pressure, a description of the composition of marshmallows, and a short discussion of how changing pressure makes them grow or shrink. Participants were also given markers and encouraged to create their own Ant-Man character with the marshmallow before experimentation. Additionally an entomologist and representatives from a local conservatory were also invited to present displays on ants and insects respectively.

For the film Jurassic World, we conducted DNA extractions from wheat germ so that moviegoers could take a sample of DNA they had processed themselves into the theater for the show, and a display of fossils was presented by the Ohio State University Orton Geological Museum including an impressive T-Rex skull. For the film Fantastic Four, science activities included light refraction experiments to mimic the powers of the Invisible Woman, and melting a small piece of the metal gallium (melting temperature 85.58°F) in the hand to mimic the heat of the Human Torch. For Star Wars: The Force Awakens, activities based around the Force focused on magnetism and static electricity (Figures 4 and 5). We have continued to develop film-related science activities with the GFC and have adopted a hybrid approach based on our experiences. For films with broader appeal that are more likely to pull in family audiences, we continue to develop hands-on, film-related science activities for Geek Sneaks associated with those movies. For the film X-Men Apocalypse we presented activities allowing theatergoers to search the human genome using a computer or test their own genetics of bitter taste [Figure 6]. For the film Star Trek Beyond, attendees could examine the warping of space or explore the International Space Station through a NASA computer simulation (Figure 7). Most recently, for the release of Shin Godzilla we showed the random nature of radioactive half-life using M&Ms and demonstrated the use of a Geiger counter with common household radioactive items.

For documentaries or other films aimed at more adult audiences, we have moved to hosting panel discussions in the theater’s restaurant area to continue conversations about film-related topics after the film has ended. For example, recent screenings of the documentaries The Last Man on the Moon and Science, Sex and the Ladies were followed by lively discussions on the future of manned flight and female sexuality. While documentaries typically do not have the same appeal as Hollywood blockbusters, we find many adult audience members are more interested in digging into the respective topics in greater detail through discussion sessions following the showings.

Audience Reactions and Challenges

Moviegoers have been generally positive towards this unusual science programming, and we frequently receive comments like “That’s really cool!” or “Why do you guys do this?” We see individuals coming to Geek Sneaks and checking in with us to see what new science activities we have planned for that film. For Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, we conducted “super” experiments to see how a person’s grip strength and total lung capacity would compare to Superman’s given some of the feats we’ve seen him demonstrate in movies. We also recorded both measures on a large board for all participants as a comparison across Geek Sneak attendees that evening. We found that not only did moviegoers enjoy these activities, but some came back repeatedly throughout the evening to check their scores compared to others. A few even asked to repeat the activities to try to improve their scores, allowing us to discuss ways they could do that long term.  We would also see one individual from a group complete the activities and then go and bring their friends over to try it as well. Most encouraging, however, is seeing groups who have completed the activities walk away discussing their results, which serves as further reinforcement of those concepts. We love watching informal science learning happening in a movie theater. 

Given that the reason people are at the GFC is to see a movie, we try to be respectful of their time as they interact with us.  We don’t want to make anyone late for a movie. If attendees decline to participate, we graciously thank them for looking and comment that we hope they enjoy their movie. When individuals do participate, we often will ask when their show time is and modify our presentation accordingly if their time is limited.  The popularity of a given movie directly relates to the number of attendees we will see for a Geek Sneak. For a film with reasonable popularity like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, we saw forty people participating in at least one of the activities during the roughly two hours we were present for the Geek Sneak.

The participation of moviegoers was observed during the American premiere of Shin Godzilla. Two activities were run simultaneously for 45 minutes, and 34 moviegoers participated in at least one of the activities; most people did both. Participation was measured if an individual spent at least one minute on an activity. Gender (male; female) and age (child; teenager; adult) were recorded, as perceived by the observer, and each participant was also asked what movie they came to see as part of the demonstrators being cognizant of movie start times. Participation was scored by counting the unique ways moviegoers participated, including if the participant asked a question, answered a question, participated in the hands-on activity, watched the Geiger counter demonstration, helped another participant with the hands-on activity, or shared a story with the demonstrators. Participation scores ranged from a 1 (for someone who, for example, just watched an activity) to a 5 (for someone who, for example, actively participated). An example of a high participation score is the first female participant. She saw another movie but was interested in the activity because her mother is a statistician. While at the table, participant 1 asked and answered questions, shared her mother’s occupation, observed the Geiger counter and participated in the hands-on activity. The average level of participation for a participant was 2.5, indicating that they engaged in between two and three unique activity modalities. 

Most participants were adults (82%), possibly due to the lateness of the show, as well as the movie being in Japanese with English subtitles, which skews viewership based on reading comprehension levels. Furthermore, most participants were men (70%); however, this seemed representative of the gender skew of moviegoers who came for the Godzilla movie. Of the 10 women who participated, three (30%) women came to Gateway to view another movie, while of the 24 men only four (16%) came to see a movie other than Godzilla. There was no statistical difference between how much men and women participated, though they participated in different ways. Men were more likely to be the first to start the hands-on activity, ask a question, or share a story, while women were more likely to answer a question or help with the hands-on activity.

Conclusions

A recent report by a committee convened through the National Research Council described the venues of informal learning as occurring in the context of three areas: everyday (life) experiences such as personal hobbies, designed settings like museums, and after-school and adult programs (Bell et al. 2009). Studies by Falk et al. have shown that the public has a broad interest in science, and a 2007 survey identified the “lifelong predominantly free choice nature of science learning” as the primary method of science education (Falk et al. 2001; Falk et al. 2007). Based on their results, the authors then recommend “a more holistic approach to science education” which “integrates school, work, and leisure time learning experiences” (Falk et al. 2007, 464). While extensive research has focused on designed settings such as museums or planetariums and informal programs such as out-of-school clubs and citizen science projects, there is considerably less information about informal science education in everyday settings.   

A recent publication by Bultitude and Sardo described a new subclass of everyday settings they termed as “generic,” which included locations designed primarily for leisure activities, where participants have chosen to be, but for reasons unrelated to science or science learning (Bultitude and Sardo 2012). In their article, the authors describe three such everyday settings including a collective of science communicators called Guerilla Science presenting at a music festival, a physics demonstration set up at a garden festival, and a biological survey (Bioblitz) conducted at a large country park. Through interviews and structured observations, the authors found that attendees of these “generic” events valued “audience participation opportunities and hands-on nature of some activities.” The authors subsequently concluded that “holding activities within a relaxed but not habitual environment, where participants are at their leisure, offers clear advantages in reaching non-standard audiences”(Bultitude and Sardo 2012, 32). Our experiences using the innovative setting of a movie theater as one such “generic” everyday setting for informal science education would confirm this. While we have only anecdotal responses from participants, we have observed that hands-on activities and discussions in the theater stoked curiosity and promoted science learning in theatergoers. Especially following panel discussions, we observed that participants seemed to connect to a movie’s science content in more personal ways. Finally, these science activities and discussions were excellent material for the Gateway Film Center to use in advertising and promotions which solidified the collaborative nature of this program.

At a recent Geek Sneak during the  summer of 2016, we were approached by an attendee who was excited to talk to us. He had attended a previous Geek Sneak for X-Men Apocalypse and had participated in the activity around bitter taste genetics and the TAS2R38 gene. He excitedly told us that since that film he’d read a couple of articles which mentioned the TAS2R38 gene; he had remembered the gene from our activity and had gone to look up additional information on it himself. While it is only a single piece of anecdotal evidence, this is exactly the impact we are aiming for.

About the Authors

Dan Mushalko is General Manager, Operations and Program Director at the National Public Radio affiliate 90.5 WCBE, a division of the Columbus City Schools District. He is also the host of “The Amazing Science Emporium,” which mixes music, puns, and other offbeat elements to teach science. Mr. Mushalko holds several journalism and education awards, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science Journalism Award. He focuses his avocational activities on education, teaching writing at Thurber House (a non-profit literary center) and conducting in-school science demonstrations. 

Johnny DiLoretto is a longtime Columbus media personality and performer. Johnny graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Film Studies in 1997 and began his career in print in 1998 as a film critic for The Other Paper. He transitioned to television in 2002 when he became the entertainment reporter, film and food critic for WSYX ABC 6 and WTTE Fox 28.  From 2012 to 2016, he was the director of communications at the Gateway Film Center, an independent, non-profit movie theater dedicated to the art of cinema and its transformational and educational potential.

Katherine R. O’Brien is a contractor with the Center for Life Science Education at the Ohio State University. She received her M.A. from Clark University and her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.    Dr. O’Brien supports increasing diversity in STEM by developing connections between universities, the arts, museums, and the communities they serve. 

Robert E. Pyatt is an Associate Director of the Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics Laboratories at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and an Associate Professor-Clinical in the Department of Pathology at The Ohio State University. He received his M.S. from Purdue University and his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University.  Dr Pyatt is passionate about science education, especially developing new avenues of informal delivery. 

References

Bell, P.B., B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder. 2009. Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Borgwald, J.M., and S. Schreiner. 1994. “Science and the Movies: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Novel Interdisciplinary Course for Teaching Science to Nonscience Majors.” Journal of College Science Teaching 23 (6): 367–371. 

Bultitude K., and A.M. Sardo. 2012. “Leisure and Pleasure: Science Events in Unusual Places.” International Journal of Science Education 34: 2775–2795. 

Dubeck, L.W., S.E. Moshier, and J.E. Boss. 1988. “Science in Cinema: Teaching Science Fact through Science Fiction Films.” New York: Teachers College Press.

Dubeck, L.W., S.E. Moshier, and J.E. Boss. 1995. “Using Science Fiction Films to Teach Science at the College Level.” Journal of College Science Teaching 25 (1): 46–50.

Falk, J.H., P. Brooks, and R. Amin. 2001. Free Choice Science Education: How We Learn Outside of School. New York: Teachers College Press.

Falk, J.H., M. Storksdieck, and L.D. Dirrking. 2007 “Investigating Public Science Interest and Understanding: Evidence for the Importance of Free-Choice Learning.” Public Understanding of Science 16: 455–469.    

Firooznia, F. 2006. “Giant Ants and Walking Plants: Using Science Fiction to Teach a Writing Intensive, Lab-Based Biology Class for Nonmajors.” Journal of College Science Teaching 35 (5): 26–31.

Gateway Film Center. n.d. “Education.”  http://gatewayfilmcenter.org/films-cool/ (accessed December 17, 2016).

Gateway Film Center. n.d. “Geek Sneaks.” http://gatewayfilmcenter.org/featured_film_series/geek-sneaks/ (accessed December 17, 2016).

Madden, H. 2014. “Discuss Science and Superheroes at Gateway Film Center.” http://www.columbusunderground.com/discuss-science-and-superheroes-at-gateway-film-center-hm1 (accessed December 17, 2016).

Madden, H. 2015. “Gateway Film Center Wins Sundance Honor.” http://www.columbusunderground.com/gateway-film-center-hm1 (accessed December 17, 2016).

Download (PDF, 2.51MB)

Abstract

Teaching undergraduate science courses through the lens of local community issues has the potential to help students connect more strongly to the sciences and to the communities near the university. In considering the construction of such courses, it is clear that even community issues that have strong science cores—water quality, viral and bacterial disease vectors—are inherently multidisciplinary, with scientific and technological considerations in balance with the economic and social factors that inform public policy. The fundamental challenge is, then, to develop ways to teach complex and multidisciplinary community issues within the context of science courses. Here, we report on a pilot study of a course structure designed to address this challenge.  Cohorts of students from different disciplines were paired, and a strategy was developed that required the students to work together to teach one another about a community issue from their discipline’s perspective. This model was applied to cohorts of chemistry and interior architecture students studying local brownfield redevelopment efforts.

Introduction

Context of the Project

Application-based service learning (ABSL, www.ABSLnews.net) is a recently developed pedagogy that infuses laboratory science courses with five of the high-impact educational strategies endorsed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities: learning communities, writing intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, and service-learning (Kuh 2008). A unique aspect of ABSL is that the undergraduate research and service-learning activities are both linked to a shared local community issue (Wei and Woodin 2011). Thus, a strength of this teaching method is that it shows students the application of science to community problems.  As a result, it provides the opportunity to teach community awareness and engagement in the science disciplines, where such perspectives are not traditionally emphasized (Dostilio et al. 2013).  The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded initial development of ABSL (CCLI Grant #0717685) and subsequent expansion and refinement of the pedagogy (TUES Phase II Grant #1226175).  As part of the effort to expand ABSL, a team consisting of a chemistry professor at the NYC College of Technology of the City University of New York (City Tech, CUNY) and an interior architecture professor at Chatham University (Pittsburgh, PA) began creation of ABSL versions of chemistry laboratory courses and partnered interior architecture courses, both focused on the issue of brownfield redevelopment.

A brownfield is “a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant” (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2015). As brownfield redevelopment is at the nexus of environmental chemistry, architecture, economics, politics, and social justice, development of an ABSL chemistry course focused on brownfield redevelopment should include perspectives from non-science disciplines.  This made the choice of partnering with the Green and Sustainable Design course from the Interior Architecture program at Chatham a logical one.  On the other hand, the Chatham Interior Architecture program’s interest in teaching students about brownfields derives from its long-standing focus on sustainability. This program has won awards from the American Society of Interior Designers for its work in sustainability education, and Chatham has made sustainability a university-wide educational focus.

While the utility of interdisciplinary collaboration in ABSL course development is clear, a critical question must be answered: What strategies can be used to foster meaningful interdisciplinary collaborations when science and non-science courses partner to study a community issue?

Results and Discussion

Interdisciplinary Collaborations Through a Shared Slide Presentation Project

At the beginning of the spring 2015 semester, a General Chemistry II laboratory course and a Green and Sustainable Design course were chosen as paired cohorts to develop and enact strategies for interdisciplinary collaboration in community-based teaching.  Wherever possible, the core concepts of both courses would be taught through the lens of understanding a shared brownfield redevelopment site, the Gowanus neighborhood in Brooklyn.  Chemistry students would perform in-class water quality laboratory experiments and out-of-class community service relating to the canal.  Design students would use the canal as a case study.  For the chemistry students, an in-class lecture and discussion about brownfields would provide an initial introduction to the issue.  Then the class would take a walking tour of the canal, seeing brownfield development in action as sites previously occupied by chemical processing and heavy industry are transformed into residential neighborhoods and retail spaces.  For the architecture students, brownfield issues would be introduced through an overview of environmentalism, then through specific investigations into environmental history.  Students would also study seminal texts related to sustainability and building, tour local “green” buildings, and view presentations on green building certification programs.

To provide a chemistry perspective to the design students, and a design perspective to the chemistry students, the paired cohorts would co-produce a narrated slide presentation about sustainable development in the Gowanus neighborhood. For the chemistry students, this co-produced slide presentation relates to the learning outcome that students be able to communicate about science in written, oral, and visual forms to a range of different audiences.  For the interior architecture students, the slide presentation connects to the learning outcome that students demonstrate an understanding of the concepts, principles, and theories of sustainability as they pertain to the built environment and its inhabitants. The presentation gives students an opportunity to construct a product that illustrates this gained knowledge.

Because the cohorts were located in different cities, met at different times, and followed semester schedules that included only seven overlapping weeks, the students’ co-production was structured so that it could be achieved through virtual interactions. Figure 1 shows how the Spring 2015 cycle of slide presentation production, feedback, and response formed the basis of a second round of slide presentation production, feedback, and response to be performed by the next semester’s cohorts of General Chemistry II and Green and Sustainable Design (Fall 2015).

Thus, through time, paired cohorts of different disciplines worked together to create increasingly refined versions of the slide presentation. Even though this model of presentation production, peer response, and feedback was developed for courses running in the same semester, the cyclical nature of the interactions means that even cohorts operating during different semesters could engage in such a collaboration model. The current presentation draft is uploaded to the ABSL website (Trun 2015).

We note that the structure of using feedback from one cohort’s presentation to inform the next cohort’s work was critical to pairing courses at Chatham and NYC College of Technology because the universities have such different semester schedules.  Chatham begins the spring semester in early January and ends by the third week in April while NYC College of Technology begins the spring semester at the end of January, recesses for two weeks in April, and then ends the spring semester in late May. However, for universities with more compatible schedules, it would be useful to test a different interaction model, one that would ensure that students receive and act upon feedback from their partner discipline before the end of the course.

Structuring the First Round of Student Slide Presentation Production

For the first round of presentation production in Spring 2015, the instructor of Green and Sustainable Design introduced students to the issue of the Gowanus neighborhood redevelopment and discussed the nature of the peer-to-peer collaboration with the chemistry students. The instructor used principles of problem-based learning (PBL) to facilitate the design students’ structuring of their first presentation draft (Duch et al. 2001). In accord with PBL, the instructor stated the problem (creating an informational slide presentation), provided access to relevant information, and acted as a facilitator for the student-driven conversations. Using categories of goals, ideas, information, and learning needs, students identified the content and organized the structure of the presentation. Using the structure they devised, students determined their own learning outcomes, established individual and team responsibilities, and defined areas where they needed to expand their knowledge. The students spent a total of two weeks planning and creating the presentation and providing feedback to one another. For the design students, this strategy mimics the project management skills they will use in their professional careers.

Details of Student Interactions to Refine Presentation

The Spring 2015 design students produced the first draft of the slide presentation approximately one week before the chemistry students were to begin water sample collection for their in-class research. The chemistry students watched the slide presentation at home, prior to the sample collection field trip. As an ungraded assignment, the chemistry students provided written feedback about the slide presentation to the design students. In the feedback, chemistry students answered the following prompts:

Describe three things you learned from this video.

• What subject(s) presented in the video was (were) most interesting to you?
• If you were making a video about Gowanus Canal development, what aspect(s) do you think needs (need) additional investigation?
• Do you have any additional comments for the student videographers at Chatham University?

The chemistry students were surprisingly engaged in this feedback exercise. Despite that fact that watching the presentation and providing feedback were ungraded activities, eighteen out of twenty-one students provided feedback. All students who provided feedback gave detailed responses, most in the range of 120 to 205 words.

In their feedback, many of the chemistry students reported learning about or becoming interested in the land use concept of zoning, the design concepts of reverse engineering, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building practices. Students further reported learning about and becoming interested in specific buildings that are part of the Gowanus neighborhood redevelopment. Finally, students reported becoming particularly interested in the technologies of remediation and sustainable engineering such as combined heat and power systems. While all of the above-described concepts, from brownfields to zoning to environmental remediation, would require entire courses to cover in detail, the slide presentation provided an initial exposure for the chemistry students.

In addition to reporting that they had gained exposure to ideas of neighborhood development and sustainable design, the chemistry students commented on aspects of development that they had not previously understood. For example, students commented that they had learned about the level of detail that goes into planning a building. Another student commented that while he or she was familiar with the concept of reverse engineering in the field of computer science, it was a surprise to find that the same concept could be applicable to environmental issues.

After the chemistry students completed their feedback forms, names were redacted, and the forms were sent to the design students. By the time chemistry students had completed the feedback forms, the design students’ semester had ended, so the design students received the feedback forms via email. In the email, the design students were asked to review the forms and provide written responses in consideration of the chemistry students’ feedback and in consideration of the experience of making a slide presentation for a partner class. The design students were asked to respond to six prompts, including

• What responses were most similar to what you anticipated?
• What responses did you find most unexpected?

Despite receiving the chemistry students’ feedback after the completion of the course, six out of the nine design students provided written feedback. Responses to the above prompts provided insight into the way design students view the learning style and knowledge background of science students. For example, some of the Green and Sustainable Design students said they expected that the science students would report being interested in the factual aspects of design (LEED, brownfields, and sustainable design technologies), but were surprised that chemistry students requested more information about the types and origins of pollution in the Gowanus neighborhood. In essence, the design students had expected that chemistry students would already have a full chemical understanding of the canal, even though such an understanding would require quite extensive and advanced laboratory work. In addition, the design students expressed surprise that the chemistry students commented on the design aspects of the presentation in particular, suggesting more visuals and less text in future versions of the presentation. Providing design students with insights into scientists’ knowledge and communication styles was an unexpected outcome of the peer-to-peer collaboration activity, and it may be helpful as designers and environmental scientists frequently work together during a building project.

Conclusions and Path Forward

Incorporation of peer-to-peer interdisciplinary activities into an ABSL course provided a means to expose students to a complex community issue from a different perspective. A serial collaboration between separate cohorts of chemistry and design students was developed, but other disciplinary pairings are also possible, as are other work structures like simultaneous virtual or in-person collaboration or mixed discipline teams. Students’ level of engagement in the peer-to-peer activities, as evidenced by their willingness to participate in ungraded exercises, was high.  It is hypothesized that two factors contribute to the observed student engagement: the increased ownership students feel when participating in projects they have structured through problem-based learning; and the greater authenticity of generating work to be used by peers as opposed to work that is simply viewed by an instructor. These hypotheses will be investigated through continued use of interdisciplinary peer-to-peer learning projects in future ABSL courses.

Aknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support of this work by the National Science Foundation (TUES Phase II Grant #1226175).  L.J.D. thanks the NYC College of Technology for additional support of the chemistry course through the CHLCARE initiative.

About the Authors

Gregory Galford is an assistant professor of interior architecture at Chatham University in Pittsburgh, PA.  He is currently a doctoral student at the University of Missouri.  His master’s degree is from the Architectural Association in London.  His research focuses on alternative forms of housing.

Nancy Trun is an associate professor of biology at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA. Nancy earned her Ph.D. in molecular biology from Princeton University. She is currently working on the microbiology of passive bioremediation systems for abandoned coal mine drainage using the application-based service learning pedagogy.

L. Jay Deiner is an associate professor of chemistry at the NYC College of Technology of the City University of New York.  Jay earned his Ph.D. in chemistry from Harvard University.  His research focuses on electrocatalytic materials and on chemistry laboratory pedagogy.

References

Dostilio, L.D., N. Conti, R. Kronk, Y.L. Weideman, S.K. Woodley, and N. Trun. 2013. “Civic Learning through Public Scholarship: Coherence among Diverse Disciplines.” Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education 3: 43–65.

Duch, B.J., S.E. Groh, and D.E. Allen, eds. 2001. The Power of Problem-Based Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Kuh, G.D. 2008. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Trun, N. 2015. ABSL Cross-Discipline Collaboration: Architecture & Chemistry. http://www.abslnews.net/greg-galford.html (accessed November 24, 2016).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Brownfield Overview and Definition. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfield-overview-and-definition (accessed November 24, 2016).

Wei, C.A., and T. Woodin. 2011. “Undergraduate Research Experiences in Biology: Alternatives to the Apprenticeship Model.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 10: 123–131.

Download (PDF, 731KB)