Abstract

California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) and San Marcos Elementary Schools have established a partnership to offer a large-scale community service learning opportunity to enrich science curriculum for K-5 students. It provides an opportunity for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors to give back to the community, allowing them to experience teaching in an elementary classroom setting, in schools that lack the resources and science instructor specialization needed to instill consistent science curricula. CSUSM responded to this need for more STEM education by mobilizing its large STEM student body to design hands-on, interactive science lessons based on Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Since 2012, the program has reached out to over four thousand K-5 students, and assessment data have indicated an increase in STEM academic performance and interest.

Introduction

School districts across the state of California (CA) are failing to teach the scientific disciplines (Dorph et al. 2011; Rumberger 1985). More specifically, when elementary students receive science instruction, it is often of poor quality and in fleeting instances (Conderman and Sheldon Woods 2008). Only one in ten CA elementary students receives interactive and engaging science instruction on a regular basis (Schweingruber et al. 2007). The lack of instruction in science content is evident at all grade levels, but is perhaps most clearly apparent and detrimental in K-5 education (Rumberger 1985).

Due in part to the long history of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the newly and widely adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS), CA elementary students have received a disproportionate amount of their educational focus on mathematics and language arts (Cody 2013; Kelly 2000; Luehmann 2007; Windschitl 2002), resulting in minimal exposure to the sciences because they are not tested until the fifth grade (http:// star.cde.ca.gov/star2012/AboutSTAR.aspx). As a result, students’ levels of investigative inquiry are not evaluated or stimulated until the late stages of elementary education. Due to such late testing, the early teaching of science material is regarded as unimportant and not pertinent to students’ “success” as elementary students, and this results in a lack of science instruction that fails to spark STEM interest levels among K-5 students (Avard 2009; Chubb and Chubb 2012; Goodrum et al. 2012; Goodrum et al. 2001; Herranen et al. 2015).

CA districts currently focus primarily on the core disciplines of English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics, where state funding is most heavily allocated, inferred from the focus of the Common Core State Standards. Districts adhering to the older NCLB increased instructional time by 43% for ELA and Math at the expense of STEM content, since conventional core disciplines such ELA and Math are regarded as crucial skills for the early academic development of elementary students. However, when considering early science education as a tool to promote critical thinking and analytic skills (Bailin 2002), it is distressing that the sciences are not also accepted as a core discipline. As a response to the lack of science in the classroom, children become isolated from the scientific process and even intimidated by the subjects, creating a pattern that denies them insight into investigative thinking and problem solving. These formative years are crucial not only for providing students opportunities to get excited about STEM content, but also to prepare them for later years of intense science exposure in their education. Furthermore, early exposure to science may set more students on a STEM-specific professional path for later life (Lyon et al. 2012; Tai et al. 2006).

Lack of professional development and teacher interest in science instruction is also a problem in elementary school education (Abell and Roth 1992; Epstein and Miller 2011; Tilgner 1990). With consistent exposure to ineffective and ill-prepared classroom instructors, students suffer in science and mathematics when compared to students who work with highly trained teachers (Abell and Roth 1992; California Council on Science and Techology 2010; Tilgner 1990). Without persistent incorporation of the sciences into school curricula, teachers are not prepared to effectively teach the subjects, and there is a lack of specialized science instructors to fill this gap (Abell and Roth 1992; Avard 2009; California Council on Science and Techology 2010; Herranen et al. 2015; Tilgner 1990).

California has shown a strong commitment to standards-based learning through its adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which were largely developed by National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, incorporating input from K-12 teachers and administrators, state leaders, and education experts (http:// www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently- asked-questions/ and http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_K-12_dev-team.pdf )(CCSESA 2013). The main goal of the CCSS is to equip students with the necessary skills in ELA and Mathematics to prepare them for success in a post-high school environment, whether it is postsecondary education or the workforce. However, within the general literacy framework of the CCSS, there are three main concerns from the perspective of early STEM education: the CCSS do not cover investigative and inquiry based science education until the fifth grade; the CCSS are meant to be interpreted at the state and local levels by school administrators; among the 135 members who wrote and reviewed the CCSS, there were no early childhood professionals or K-3 teachers (Miller and Carlsson-Paige 2013). Not providing detailed STEM education and assessment until the fifth grade is detrimental in itself, but there are other aspects of the CCSS that further hinder early STEM education. The CCSS do not call for the training of STEM educators; rather the CCSS prompt teachers and administrators to adapt the CCSS according to their own vision. Granting more flexibility to local levels for decision-making and interpretation of the standards is likely to marginalize STEM education due to the initial lack of resources and specialized instructors allocated for STEM education (California Council on Science and Techology 2010). The sciences are often overlooked or oversimplified as a result of being deemed too difficult or underfunded to implement. This leads administrations to focus more on traditional core disciplines, or to cut corners in science education and teach shallow concepts. With so few professional science educators as part of the development process (Franz and Enochs 1982; Hurd 1970), insufficient facilities and equipment (Tosun 2000), and poor teacher attitudes (Koballa and Crawley 1985) there is little optimism that a STEM curriculum would receive the attention and championing from administrations that would be required for STEM incorporation into the K-5 curricula.

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

The National Science Education Standards from the National Research Council (NRC) and“Benchmarks for Science Literacy” from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have historically acted as guidelines for states in the development of state specific science standards, and in this case the CCSS (http:// www.nextgenscience.org/frequently-asked-questions#1.1). However, these documents have become obsolete in the last fifteen years as advances in science and effective science pedagogy have been made. Thus, the NRC created a framework with new definitions about what it means to be proficient in science. Experts in the fields of science, engineering, cognitive science, curriculum, assessment, and education policy were involved in the developmental process of this framework that would ultimately be the foundation for the NGSS (http://www.nextgenscience. org/frequently-asked-questions#3.1). The mantra assumed by this framework was that employability in the 21st century would largely depend on skills based in the sciences and mathematics (Langdon et al. 2011; Stine and Matthews 2009). Along with reading, writing, and communication skills, the NGSS recognizes aptitude in science and mathematics as equally important for integration into the workforce. Rather than leaving its standards up for interpretation, the NGSS clearly defines what science concepts ought to be taught, as well as how to establish connections between cross-disciplinary concepts. This is one of the ways in which the CCSS have failed in the past: not only do they fall short in establishing core science instruction, but they make no effort to create relationships between different subdisciplines within the sciences, such as medicine and plant biology. When students can identify and bridge the gaps between two or more science subdisciplines they are able to exercise an improved intrinsic understanding of the concepts involved by see- ing how each discipline acts independently in addition to how the disciplines act in tandem.

The move towards the NGSS is very district/school specific, but at a state level CA first started to implement the NGSS system in 2013 in the context of a continuous learning process. The plan consists of installing three main phases (the awareness phase—introduction to the CA NGSS [2013-2015], transition phase—building foundational resources [2015-2018], and the implementation phase—fully aligned curriculum [2016 and beyond]) (California Department of Education 2014). The NGSS were in part developed to reflect the type of job distribution expected for the future. The National Science Foundation “estimates that eighty percent of the jobs created in the next decade will require some form of math and science skills.” Even if students do not pursue a STEM- based career, the benefits of including more STEM content at all education levels include problem solving, independent thinking, and literacy in the workings of the natural world (Brophy et al. 2008; Bybee 2010; Eshach 2003; Katehi et al. 2009; Portsmore and Rogers 2004; Sanders 2009).

Tackling the Lack of Early Science Experiences through Service Learning

In 2011, a small team of CSUSM STEM faculty recognized this dilemma and proposed to conduct a two-week after-school science enrichment program in partnership with Twin Oaks Elementary School (TOES), a local K-5 school in the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD). The principal and CSUSM STEM faculty were overwhelmed with the response of more than a hundred parents who gave permission for their children to participate in the after-school science program. The participating children were thoroughly engaged in the pilot program and the parent feedback was supportive, indicating a strong desire to continue with the program in the future.

After realizing the success, there was an immediate desire among the participating CSUSM faculty to install a more substantial and embedded STEM project-based learning outreach program (Goebel et al. 2009; Han et al. 2015; Perkins et al. 2015). STEM project-based learning is an instructional strategy that is student driven, interdisciplinary, collaborative, engaging, and hands-on/technology-based (El Sayary et al. 2015; Han et al. 2015; Larmer et al. 2015; Savery 2015). Capitalizing on the student body within the College of Science and Mathematics, faculty recruited STEM undergraduate majors interested in helping on the project. Teams of CSUSM students were tasked to develop hands-on, experiential science lessons that were based on the Next Generation Science Standards to supplement elementary curricula using the“5E’s Learning Cycle Model”—Engage, Explore Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate— from the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) (Bybee et al. 2006). The goal was to create one-hour-long lesson plans that encouraged inquiry-based and hands-on learning to excite these young students with innovative learning experiences ( Christensen et al. 2015; Greenspan 2016; Hampden-Thompson and Bennett 2013; Shelton 2016).

In Fall 2012, these first lessons were designed and administered to every K-5 classroom at TOES, reaching over 850 elementary school children and incorporating sixty college students who acted as instructors.

Program Extension

The program eventually evolved into a large-scale community service project, involving the recruitment of 220 STEM majors from across fifteen courses each semester. As a result of the increase in the number of participants, the program expanded in the spring of 2013 to include another local Title 1 elementary school, San Marcos Elementary (SME). At SME, the teaching model adopted was slightly different. Specifically, all fifth grade classes received one hour-long lesson per week for six weeks, with a different NGSS standard addressed each week. This different model was created in order to evaluate student retention of the STEM content taught, using pre- and post-assessments. The TOES program, although without assessments, continued to deliver a lesson to elementary school students at all grade levels each semester.

Methods

Recruitment of CSUSM Science Majors

CSUSM professors offered service learning as an extra credit option in many of the core science curriculum classes that students must take in order to fulfill their science degrees (Table 1). Recruitment from these classes resulted in a large enough student participant pool (180- 220 undergraduate students) to cover 40-54 lesson plans a semester.

Lesson Plan Development

In order for CSUSM undergrads to receive the extra credit for their participation, they had to satisfy a number of program requirements in addition to preparing a lesson plan based on assigned elementary standards intertwined with curriculum content covered in their own college-level classes. Students interested in the program were invited to an online module where they selected a K-5 grade to sign up for on a first-come, first-served basis. Depending on the grade level they signed up for, undergrads were assigned a presentation date and group partners who also signed up for the same presentation date. Through the module students gained access to important information and instructions for the program, including the ability to use a discussion board, select times for rehearsal sessions, and review general guidance for the program. Groups consisted of two to three STEM-based undergraduates assigned with an Integrated Credentials Program (ICP 381) student or a CSUSM Noyce Teacher Scholar. The Noyce Scholars is a program that responds to the critical need for K-12 teachers in STEM fields by encouraging talented STEM students and professionals to pursue STEM teaching careers. STEM undergraduates designed engaging experiments and brought forth content knowledge, while ICP and Noyce Scholars contributed a pedagogical perspective by conducting classroom management training and translating science concepts into age-appropriate lesson plan material.

To obtain credit for completing the project, students had to satisfy five main requirements that defined the outreach program rubric. The first was to attend an orientation. The orientation explained the overall purpose and goals of the program and provided detailed explanations of the lesson plan rubric, due dates, and expectations. Here the students had the opportunity to meet the directors of the program and ask specific questions. All the information from the orientation was accessible on the module, with additional discussion forums where students could ask follow-up questions.

The second component of the rubric was designing a lesson plan. Groups were given two weeks to collaborate on a lesson plan for their selected grade via electronic communication and in-person meetings. They collectively selected their lesson plan topic (while still adhering to the subject matter of their university level class and their respective elementary grade level standards) unless the elementary class requested a specific topic in advance. All the lesson plans were developed from the“5 E’s Learning Cycle Model” (Bybee et al. 2006). This model provided clear delineation of a lesson plan into five main sections: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and Evaluation. Each lesson plan began with an “Engagement” activity designed to quickly stimulate student interest while pre-assessing their prior understanding of the subject. Engagement activities capture students’ interest and help them to make connections with what they may already know about the subject. Most engagement activities consisted of short instructor demos, videos, or a classroom activity to swiftly capture student interest. Next was the “Exploration” phase, where students encountered hands-on experiences in which they explored the concept further. They received little explanation and were encouraged to collaborate with peers to define the problem or phenomenon in their own words. The purpose of this stage of the model is for students to acquire a common set of experiences from which they can help one another make sense of the concepts and observations. Students must spend significant time during this stage of the model talking about their experiences, both to articulate their own understanding and to understand other peers’ viewpoints. The “Explanation” section provides the scientific explanations and terms for the topic under investigation. CSUSM students presented the concepts via lecture, demonstration, PowerPoint, or other multimedia. Undergrads were reminded to avoid strict lecturing in this phase and instead encouraged to keep the classroom discussion as interactive as possible. Students then used the terms to describe what they had experienced thus far in the presentation and began to mentally examine how this explanation fit with what they already knew. In the “Elaboration” phase students were given an opportunity to apply the concepts they had learned by conducting an experiment that the undergrads set up. Peer to peer interaction was essential during the “Elaboration” stage. By discussing their ideas with others, students could construct a deeper understanding of the concepts. Crucial to the experiment was a hands-on component where students had a chance to use instrumentation, make observations, record data, and reflect upon their findings (Greenspan 2016). Finally, an “Evaluation” section concluded the lesson plan. It was designed to allow the students to continue to elaborate on their understanding through interactive classroom discussion and to evaluate what they knew now and what they had yet to figure out. Evaluation of student understanding should take place throughout all phases of the instructional model; in the “Evaluation” stage, however, the teacher determined the extent to which students had developed a meaningful understanding of the concepts. The last ten minutes of the lesson were dedicated to answering student questions about college. The elementary students had the opportunity to ask the CSUSM students about their experiences, which built a role model relationship.

A template lesson plan was provided on the module for the students to use so that finished lesson plans were all uniform in the 5E model. The requirements for the lesson plans were K-5 standards-based, focused on hands-on experiences and interactive engagement and contained both a data collection component and a take-home component. The goal was to have each lesson plan written in such de- tail that in the future any elementary school teacher, specifically those with non-STEM backgrounds and little experience teaching STEM content, could comprehend and completely implement the lesson plan from start to finish. Upon completion of a first draft, lesson plans were uploaded to the module, where they were edited and annotated by at least one individual—the graduate student coordinators, CSUSM faculty, or an elementary teacher for feedback and advice. The undergraduates then adapted their lesson plans, based on those recommendations, and resubmitted a final draft, which was again looked at by another member of the committee. Once the lesson plan gained approval, the group attended one or two mock sessions, which could be scheduled through the module, depending on the coordinators opinion of how prepared the group was to present in the classroom. If the lesson plan was not satisfactory, it was sent back for a rewrite along with assistance from one of the program directors. In the end, each lesson plan was approved by the program directors, a CSUSM professor and an elementary teacher. We used the following criteria to approve the lesson plan: were all the components of the 5E lesson plan completed, were the main objective and standards clearly articulated, was it clear what the children as well as the presenters (CSUSM students) would be doing at each stage of the lesson, and what was the take-home message?

The third component of the rubric was to attend a mock session. Here undergrads ran from start to finish through their lesson plan in front of program directors to gain approval on lesson plan items such as their featured experiment, physical materials, worksheets, PowerPoints, and multimedia. Groups demonstrated their experiment or provided a video of the experiment to prove that it was legitimate and well thought out. If the committee decided the group was not ready to present, then they were asked to attend another mock session. Other details such as classroom organization, teaching tips, attire, and etiquette were addressed as well. Any necessary science equipment required for their lesson plan was documented and requested by program directors to be borrowed from various CSUSM departments. Program directors then made the equipment available on the day the undergrads presented at the elementary schools.

The fourth component of the rubric was to present the lesson to their designated classroom. Each group arrived 30 minutes prior to the presentation start time, so that they could collect their equipment and set up the classroom. After completion of their lesson they were responsible for cleaning the classroom.

The fifth component, and to get full credit for the program, undergrads had to fill out a final reflection survey and a peer review evaluation located on the module. The surveys addressed questions about their experience with the elementary students and program administration and their interests in teaching, as well as their desire for future participation in the program.

Pre- and Post-Assessments

The San Marcos Elementary School (SME) model was identical to the TOES model except that only fourth and fifth grade classes were targeted due to the number of participating undergrads available. Fourth and fifth graders were the primary target age range, since fifth grade is the year students are STAR (California Standardized Testing and Reporting) tested in science for the first time. The goal for this SME model would be that the same class of students would receive science instruction for three to six weeks in a row and then be assessed for their retention of the material with pre- and post-assessments to determine if there were any measurable effects. The evaluation questions were multiple choice questions taken from released California Content Standards Tests as part of the STAR Program. There were twenty questions selected at random for the assessment. The Online Assessment Reporting System (OARS) (http://www.redschoolhouse. com) were used to data-mine and correlate the pre- and post-tests. With OARS, we were able not only to identify specific standards the students improved on; we were also able to predict their possible percentile score on the California exams. All pre- and post-assessments were also analyzed using a paired end t-test with a 0.05 significance as previously established in Fraenkel et al. (1993).

In the first SME semester (Spring 2013 cohort) the evaluations were given to thirty-two students (out of 137 students) who were selected to be a representative cohort of the entire fifth grade population. This cohort consisted of one entire class that received the science instruction who placed together based on previous performance in language and math state assessments in the previous year (STAR testing; http://star.cde.ca.gov/ star2012/help_scoreexplanations.aspx). There are four categories of STAR results: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Far below/Below basic. Eight students in this class fell into each category, yielding the thirty-two students. The next semester (Fall 2013 cohort) every fifth grade class at the school was evaluated with a new set of questions. The pre-test was administered by SME teachers one week before the lessons began during school hours. The post- test for the Spring 2013 semester was administered a week after finishing the six weeks of lesson plans. In the Fall 2013 session, the post-assessment was administered the following semester, a total of four months after completing the lesson plans to see if the students understood the material or just had short-term retention following the lessons.

Research

Over the past three years, the CSUSM STEM Program has delivered 125 lesson plans and provided over 4,000 instances in which students at two neighboring elementary schools engaged in hands-on and experiential learning encounters with science. Lesson plan topics range from chemistry, physics, and engineering to physiology, botany, and many other subdivisions of biology. Hands-on experiments range from dry ice demos, growing yeast balloons, launching bottle rockets, microscopy of viruses, periodic element games, and centripetal force demonstrations to creating plant biomes and countless others. CSUSM undergrads have been able to come up with unique and creative ways to address the California State Standards and NGSS while creating a step-by-step lesson plan so that any non-STEM instructor would be able to confidently and successfully create an engaging hour of science.

In the Spring 2013 cohort, 32 students out of 137 from SME were selected to be a representative cohort of the entire fifth grade student population, as they reflected an equal representation of each of the performance groups in language arts and mathematics. These students completed a 20-question pre-assessment test and then retook the same 20-question test as a post-assessment after their six consecutive weeks of lessons given by CSUSM college students. During this time there was no additional science given to the students in their regular elementary classroom environment. The post-assessments showed an increase in academic STEM performance. On average the students increased their test scores by 4.7 points (t= -8.5925, df = 29, p-value = 1.83e-09; Figure 1) after the completion of CSUSM lesson plans.

For the Spring 2013 model, the Online Assessment Reporting System (OARS) was used. This information was rearranged into Figure 2 showing the results from the pre-assessment and the corresponding post-assessment for that semester. In the pre-assessment, 70% of the students tested in the Far Below Basic category and only 3% tested into the Proficient level (national goal). There were no students who tested into the Advanced level. After just six weeks of science instruction, there was a 33% decrease in the Far Below Basic and a twenty-three percent increase into the Proficient level. There was even a 3% increase into the top Advanced level.

Instead of teaching all the fifth grade classrooms for six weeks, the program was adapted to cover both the fourth grade classrooms and the fifth grade classrooms for three weeks in a row. The idea was that the fourth graders would eventually have two rounds of the program before being assessed in the fifth grade and four rounds before entering middle school. To see the effect of having only three weeks of consecutive lesson plan education, every fifth grader at SME was evaluated before the start of the lesson plans implementation. Unlike the Spring 2013 cohort, these students took the post-assessment test the following semester to truly demonstrate information retention of the lesson plans education. The results of post-assessments again showed an increase in academic STEM performance. On average the students increased their test scores by 0.96 points (t = -5.514, df = 98, p-value = 2.849e-07; Figure 3) after the completion of three weeks of CSUSM lesson plans. Hence, from these two pilot cohorts, six weeks of instruction resulted in a greater increase in performance after the exposure to science lessons, although there was also an increase after only three weeks of instruction.

After only a single but very engaging lesson on elements and the breakdown of the periodic table, there was a huge increase in answering two of the post- assessment questions. An example of these questions was “A student is grouping elements by chemical properties. According to the periodic table, the element with similar chemical properties to carbon (C) and tin (Sn) is a) gold (Au), b) calcium (Ca), c) nitrogen (N), and d) silicon (Si) [Correct answer]. More than half the students who initially answered incorrectly on the pre-test were able to answer it correctly on the post-assessment. Towards the start of that semester the students were exposed to a chemistry lesson on the periodic table trends through the use of an engaging game. This game emphasized periodic trends such that elements near each other on the periodic table share chemical properties. By making this activity into a game, played against their peers, there was an increase in student involvement, leading to an increase in information retention. Such an activity, whether it be an in-class game or an interactive hands-on activity, can transform the process of learning science content into a fun and memorable experience; an experience that leads to an increase in students’ scores from pre- to post-assessment.

The STEM outreach also has a positive impact on CSUSM STEM majors. The overall feedback at the end of the semester was positive from both the elementary students/teachers and the CSUSM undergrad students/faculty. We collected feedback data from the CSUSM participants through a survey presented online. There was an overwhelming positive response to the program in its entirety. Not only were there positive gains in the elementary school test scores but the survey also showed that 87% of CSUSM students proved to have had a rewarding experience. In fact, as a result of their experience, 43% of the CSUSM students actually started considering teaching as a career path. Ninety-seven percent of the students recommended that the program continue, and 80% of the CSUSM students reported they had learned something new that would benefit them in their future career path. Each year the program grows, and as directors we have adapted its design to what works and have accommodated all the new additions. The program was not based on a previous model but was created on the basis of a conversation between an elementary school teacher and a CSUSM professor, indicating the authentic and truly collaborative nature of the work.

Discussion

This large-scale program has successfully developed a model to deliver hands-on science lessons to elementary school children by college STEM majors. The program was implemented as result of the strong partnership between the local elementary principals and CSUSM faculty. This program served two Title I schools in the SMUSD. These schools do not have the resources, including time and expertise, to deliver high-quality, impactful hands-on science instruction. Only six extra hours of engaging hands-on lesson plans implemented by STEM undergrad role models was enough to improve the elementary students’ retention and interest in the subjects.

It’s important to note that most of the assessments and lessons were given prior to the initial release of NGSS and were based on the previous California state standards. As soon as the NGSS were released in CA, however, we immediately began to design our lesson plans to include the NGSS aspects. Our goal was to develop hands-on lessons that would provide meaningful engagement for the children. Coincidentally, this is also the emphasis of NGSS. The NGSS science and engineering practices involved asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigation, analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. The DCIs (disciplinary core ideas) were the primary target in the design of the lesson plans since they are as close as the NGSS has come to setting standards, while XCCs (cross-cutting concepts) were used minimally during the lessons. This was primarily because the idea of XCCs had not been fully developed or released at the time of the initial lessons. However, XCCs could well be incorporated into future lessons. Finally, SEPs (Science and Engineering Practices) would involve explaining a concept or phenomenon by using or creating models. This is practically the core to our lessons; all are engaging and hands-on.

Elementary students experienced an overall increase in retention of knowledge and STEM academic performance in all our cohorts. The Spring 2013 cohort had a greater improvement, most likely due to a longer exposure to more lesson plans. However, even in the Fall 2013 cohort, when this time frame was cut in half to three weeks, we were still able to see an increase from the pre- to the post-assessments. This illustrates the dramatic effect on students when they are given hands-on, engaging experiments. These experiments stimulated students’ interest, which led to an increased retention of knowledge of the material, ultimately facilitating a better understanding of the subject matter and content. The Fall 2013 cohort was tested four months later, and the students were still able to retain much of the information from the lessons given by the CSUSM students. There was also a notable increase in the elementary students’ interest levels in STEM fields from the start to the finish of the program. By the end of the program, the students were announcing that science had become their “favorite subject.” This program helped bridge these students from viewing science as an intimidating and hard subject to a familiar and fun enterprise.

From the exit survey for the college students it was reported that the program also increased undergraduate interest in teaching, which was an added benefit of the program (Borgerding 2015; Certificates 2008; Moin et al. 2005; Tomanek and Cummings 2000; Worsham et al. 2014). The survey also showed that this extra credit opportunity benefited the students by improving their understanding of the college-level course from which they were initially recruited. The college students elaborated that the ability to teach a complex topic that they were studying to students at an elementary level was a true challenge and tested their own understanding of the topic. As a result, the faculty members at CSUSM have had a positive response to continuing to offer this opportunity to their students.

The program has also created a partnership in the San Marcos community, between elementary students and college students. These young elementary school students are repeatedly surrounded with intelligent and successful college-level role models instilling in them the notion of achieving a college degree. The CSUSM undergrads served as role models for the children in multiple ways: clarifying misconceptions about college life, encouraging the importance of attending college, exemplifying proper behavior as a college student, and inspiring them with the notion that college was a feasible achievement ( Bruce et al. 1997; Marks et al. 2004; McMinn 2015; Schmidt et al. 2004; Sjaastad 2012; Tierney and Branch 1992). It was verified that the children viewed the college students as role models through verbal cues indicating the children’s new desire to attend college and become a scientist just like their college student instructor. An additional benefit of the program is that the CSUSM student body that participated was reflective of the children in the community. Specifically, CSUSM is a Hispanic Serving Institution with about 34% of students self-reporting as latino/a (https://www.csusm.edu/communications/ cougarstats/). These students continue to serve as great models in our community, especially in our project, where the elementary schools served have higher numbers of latino/a students, 64% at Twin Oaks Elementary ( Jacobsen 2015–2016) and 95.3 percent at San Marcos Elementary (Wallace 2012–2013). As a result, not only were the CSUSM students experts on the topic but they were of the same ethnicity as the students and were seen as a success story about going to college: the elementary students could see their STEM teachers as role models for themselves.

This partnership could be easily replicated and repeated in other universities, with neighboring local elementary schools. The model has been shown to be effective in raising awareness of and interest in STEM education. The CSUSM program has been contacted by other elementary and middle schools with hopes of expansion to their schools, both inside and outside of the SMUSD. We anticipate the expansion of the project to other elementary schools while still maintaining the SME and TOES models. It would also be beneficial to track the undergraduates who reported an increased interest in teaching after participating in the program to see if they eventually did start to take education classes. We would also like to compile all the lesson plans we have collected and make them readily available for elementary school teachers. We expect to continue assessing our results each semester, to measure improvements in standards-based testing, to identify program areas that need enhancement, and to compile data for future funding and expansion.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank CSUSM Office of Civic Engagement, Office for Training, Research and Education in the Sciences, and the NOYCE Scholar Program for funding the project. We would also like to acknowledge all the teachers at TOES and SME who participated and sup- ported this program, CSUSM Dean Katherine A. Kantardjieff, and all CSUSM faculty who offered the program in their coursework. Lastly we would like to thank all the CSUSM undergrads who participated.

About the Authors

Colleen Lopez graduated from University of California, Irvine in 2011 with a B.A. in Anthropology. In 2014, she graduated from California State University San Marcos with an M.S. in Biology. She currently is a graduate student in the doctoral program in the Department of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Oxford, England. Colleen was one of the co-directors of the CSUSM STEM community outreach program.

Jon Rocha completed his Bachelor’s degree at the University of Southern California. He worked as an assistant on the STEM service-learning project in 2015 and in 2016 has joined California State University San Marcos as an Outreach Coordinator.

Matthew Chapman obtained his Bachelor’s degree from Concordia University and his teaching credential from California State University San Marcos. Prior to teaching, he worked as a Systems Administrator at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Franchise.com. He is currently a fifth grade teacher and team lead at San Marcos Elementary.

Kathleen Rocha has been an elementary teacher in San Marcos for the past fifteen years. She had the opportunity to represent San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) as a Distinguished Teacher in Residence at CSUSM, where she still teaches classes in the School of Education. Currently, she serves as an instructional coach and intervention teacher at Twin Oaks Elementary School.

Stephanie Wallace obtained her Bachelor’s degree from the University of San Diego and then became an educator. She is the principal of San Marcos Elementary.

Steven Baum has been in education for twenty-one years, all in San Marcos. He began his career at San Marcos High School as a Biology and Human Physiology teacher and a basketball and football coach. For the last eleven years he has served as a principal, both at Knob Hill Elementary and at Twin Oaks Elementary.

Brian R. Lawler (Ph.D. University of Georgia) is an Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, primarily teaching Secondary and Elementary Mathematics Education methods in the credential programs along with Educational Research for graduate students at California State University San Marcos. Dr. Lawler earned his Ph.D. in Mathematics

Bianca R. Mothé (Ph.D. 2002 University of Wisconsin-Madison) is the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies at California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). Prior to joining CSUSM, she was a Senior Scientist at Epimmune, a biotechnology company in San Diego, CA, focused on vaccine development. She currently serves as a chartered member on NIH’s Vaccines against Microbial Pathogens study section.

References

Abell, S.K., and M. Roth. 1992. “Constraints to Teaching Elementary Science: A Case Study of a Science Enthusiast Student Teacher.” Science Education 76 (6): 581–595.

Avard, M. 2009. “Student-centered Learning in an Earth Science, Preservice, Teacher-Education Course.” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 38 (6): 24–29.

Bailin, S. 2002. “Critical Thinking and Science Education.” Science & Education 11 (4): 361–375.

Borgerding, L.A. 2015. “Recruitment of Early STEM Majors into Possible Secondary Science Teaching Careers: The Role of Science Education Summer Internships.” International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 10 (2): 247–270.

Brophy, S., S. Klein, M. Portsmore, and C. Rogers. 2008. “Advancing Engineering Education in P‐12 Classrooms.” Journal of Engineering Education 97 (3): 369–387.

Bruce, B.C., S. Bruce, R.L. Conrad, and H.J. Huang. 1997. “University Science Students as Curriculum Planners, Teachers, and Role Models in Elementary School Classrooms.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (1): 69–88.

Bybee, R.W., J.A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. C. Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes. 2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Bybee, R.W. 2010. “Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision.” Technology and Engineering Teacher 70 (1): 30–35.

CCSESA (California County Superintendents Educational Services Association). 2013. Leadership Planning Guide California: Common Core State Standards and Assessments Implementation. https://www.cta.org/~/media/Documents/PDFs/Issues%20 and%20Action%20PDFs/Testing%20and%20Standards/CCSS- LeadershipPlanGuide.ashx (accessed June 26, 2016).

California Council on Science and Technology. 2010. The Preparation of Elementary School Teachers to Teach Science in California: Challenges and Opportunities Impacting Teaching and Learning Science. https://ccst.us/publications/2010/2010K-6. pdf (accessed June 27, 2016).

California Department of Education. 2014. Next Generation Science Standards Systems Implementation Plan for California. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ pd/ca/sc/documents/scienceimplementationplan102714.pdf (accessed June 26, 2016).

Certificates, P.I. 2008. Math and Science Teachers: Recruiting and Retaining California’s Workforce. https://edsource.org/wp- content/publications/mathscienceteachers08.pdf. (accessed June 26, 2016).

Christensen, R., G. Knezek, and T. Tyler-Wood. 2015. “Alignment of Hands-on STEM Engagement Activities with Positive STEM Dispositions in Secondary School Students.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 24 (6): 898–909.

Chubb, I., and I.W. Chubb (2012). Mathematics, Engineering & Science in the National Interest. Office of the Chief Scientist, Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.chiefscientist.gov. au/wp- content/uploads/Office-of-the-Chief-Scientist-MES- Report-8-May-2012.pdf (accessed June 26, 2016).

Cody, A. 2013. “Common Core Standards: Ten Colossal Errors.” Education Week Teacher/Living in Dialogue. November 16, 2013. http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in dia- logue/2013/11/common_core_standards_ten_colo.html (accessed June 26, 2016).

Conderman, G., and C. Sheldon Woods. 2008. “Science Instruction: An Endangered Species.” Kappa Delta Pi Record 44 (2): 76–80.

Dorph, R., P. Shields, J. Tiffany-Morales, A. Hartry, and T. McCaffrey. 2011. High Hopes—Few Opportunities: The Status of Elementary Science Education in California. Strengthening Science Education in California. Sacramento: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.

El Sayary, A.M.A., S.A. Forawi, and N. Mansour. 2015. “STEM Education and Problem-Based Learning.” In The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking, R. Wegerif, Li Li, J. C. Kaufman, eds., 357–369. London and New York: Routledge.

Epstein, D., and R.T. Miller. 2011. “Slow off the Mark: Elementary School Teachers and the Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education.” Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/ report/2011/05/04/9680/slow-off-the-mark/ (accessed June 26, 2016).

Eshach, H. 2003. “Inquiry-Events as a Tool for Changing Science Teaching Efficacy Belief of Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 12 (4): 495–501.

Fraenkel, J.R., N.E. Wallen, and H.H. Hyun. 1993. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Franz, J.R., and L.G. Enochs. 1982. “Elementary School Science: State Certification Requirements in Science and Their Implications.” Science Education 66 (2): 287–292.

Goebel, C.A., A. Umoja, and R.L. DeHaan. 2009. “Providing Undergraduate Science Partners for Elementary Teachers: Benefits and Challenges.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 8 (3): 239–251.

Goodrum, D., A. Druhan, and J. Abbs. 2012. “The Status and Quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in Australian Schools.” Australian Academy of Science: Prepared for the Office of the Chief Scientist. https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/ reports-and-plans/2015/year11and12report.pdf (accessed June 26, 2016).

Goodrum, D., L.J. Rennie, and M.W. Hackling. 2001. The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian Schools: A Research Report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Greenspan, Y.F. 2016. A Guide to Teaching Elementary Science: Ten Easy Steps. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Hampden-Thompson, G., and J. Bennett. 2013. “Science Teaching and Learning Activities and Students’ Engagement in Science.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (8): 1325–1343.

Han, S., R. Capraro, and M.M. Capraro. 2015. “How Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Project-Based Learning (PBL) Affects High, Middle, and Low Achievers Differently: The Impact of Student Factors on Achievement.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13 (5): 1089–1113.

Herranen, J.K., V.-M. Vesterinen, and M.K. Aksela. 2015. “How to Measure Elementary Teachers’ Interest in Teaching Chemistry?” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 16 (2): 408–416.

Hurd, P.D. 1970. “Scientific Enlightenment for an Age of Science.” Sci Teacher.

Jacobsen, S. 2015–2016. School Accountability Report Card. San Marcos, CA: Twin Oaks Elementary School. Twin Oaks Elementary School, 1-12.

Katehi, L., G. Pearson, and M. Feder. 2009. “Engineering in K-12 Education.” Washington, D.C.: Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies.

Kelly, J. 2000. “Rethinking the Elementary Science Methods Course: A Case for Content, Pedagogy, and Informal Science Education.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (7): 755–777.

Koballa, T.R., and F.E. Crawley. 1985. “The Influence of Attitude on Science Teaching and Learning.” School Science and Mathematics 85 (3): 222–232.

Langdon, D., G. McKittrick, D. Beede, B. Khan, and M. Doms. 2011. “STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief# 03-11.” Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce. http:// www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf (accessed June 27, 2016).

Larmer, J., J. Mergendoller, and S. Boss. 2015. Setting the Standard for Project Based Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Luehmann, A.L. 2007.“Identity Development as a Lens to Science Teacher Preparation.” Science Education 91 (5): 822–839.

Lyon, G.H., J. Jafri, and K. St. Louis. 2012. “Beyond the Pipeline: STEM Pathways for Youth Development.” Afterschool Matters 16: 48–57.

McMinn, S.E. 2015. The Effects of College-bound High School Students Mentoring At-Risk Elementary Students. https:// dspace.creighton.edu/xmlui/handle/10504/68906 (accessed June 27, 2016).

Miller, E. and N. Carlsson-Paige. 2013. “A Tough Critique of Common Core on Early Childhood Education.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/ wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early- childhood-education/ (accessed June 27,   2016).

Moin, L.J., J.K. Dorfield, and C.D. Schunn. 2005. “Where Can We Find Future K‐12 Science and Math Teachers? A Search by Academic Year, Discipline, and Academic Performance Level.” Science Education 89 (6): 980–1006.

Perkins, G.D., A. Collins, D. Knauft, and N. Fuhrman. 2015. Positive Impacts of a STEM-Centered University Service-Learning Course. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/view- content.cgi?article=1024&context=stem (accessed June 27, 2016).

Portsmore, M., and C. Rogers. 2004. “Bringing Engineering to Elementary School.” Journal of STEM Education 5 (4).

Rumberger, R. 1985. “The Shortage of Mathematics and Science Teachers: A Review of the Evidence.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 7 (4): 355–369.

Sanders, M. 2009. “STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania.” The Technology Teacher 68 (4): 20–26.

Savery, J.R. 2015. “Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions.” In Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning, A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, and P.A. Ert- mer, eds., 5–15. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Schmidt, M.E., J.L. Marks, and L. Derrico. 2004. “What a Difference Mentoring Makes: Service Learning and Engagement for College Students.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 12 (2): 205–217.

Schweingruber, H.A., R.A. Duschl, and A.W. Shouse. 2007. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades

K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Shelton, A. 2016. Meaningful Science: A Look at Elementary Science Education Practices. http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1488&context=honors (accessed June 27, 2016).

Sjaastad, J. 2012. “Sources of Inspiration: The Role of Significant Persons in Young People’s Choice of Science in Higher Education.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (10): 1615–1636.

Stine, D.D., and C.M. Matthews. 2009. “The US Science and Technology Workforce.” Congressional Research Service. https:// www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34539.pdf (accessed June 27, 2016).

Tai, R.H., C.Q. Liu, A.V. Maltese, and X. Fan. 2006. “Planning Early for Careers in Science.” Science 312: 1143–1145.

Tierney, J.P., and A.Y. Branch. 1992. College Students as Mentors for At-Risk Youth: A Study of Six Campus Partners in Learning Programs. http://www.issuelab.org/resource/college_students_ as_mentors_for_at_risk_youth_a_study_of_six_campus_part- ners_in_learning_programs (accessed June 27, 2016).

Tilgner, P.J. 1990. “Avoiding Science in the Elementary School.” Sci. Ed. 74 (4): 421–431.

Tomanek, D., and K.E. Cummings. 2000. “The Use of Secondary Science Classroom Teaching Assistant Experiences to Recruit Academically Talented Science Majors into Teaching.” Sci. Ed. 84 (2): 212-227.

Tosun, T. 2000. “The Beliefs of Preservice Elementary Teachers toward Science and Science Teaching.” School Science and Mathematics 100 (7): 374–379.

Wallace, S. 2012–2013. School Accountability Report Card. San Marcos Elementary School. San Marcos, CA: San Marcos Elementary School, 1–13.

Windschitl, M. 2002. “Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers.” Review of Educational Research 72 (2): 131–175.

Worsham, H.M., P. Friedrichsen, M. Soucie, E. Barnett, and M. Akiba. 2014. “Recruiting Science Majors into Secondary Science Teaching: Paid Internships in Informal Science Settings.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 25 (1): 53–77.

Abstract

The Clean Air and Healthy Homes Program (CAHHP) is a science education outreach program that involves students in research of their own design related to indoor and outdoor air pollution and links with respiratory health. The program, which provides equipment, lesson plans, and support to middle and high school classrooms and professional development for teachers, is an excellent model of how to engage students in relevant and authentic science research and learning. This article describes the current program, how it promotes authentic science learning in secondary science education, and the positive impact it has had on student learning and attitudes.’

Introduction

Providing students the opportunity to truly do science has been shown time and time again to positively influence their science learning experience, including increasing students’ interest in science (Ainley et al. 2002; Hasni and Potvin 2015; Palmer 2009; Potvin and Hasni 2014; Rivera Maulucci et al. 2014; Sadeh and Zion 2011; Spronken-Smith et al. 2012; Swarat et al. 2012). Other studies have reported that students engaged in inquiry-based learning focused on the process of science actually improved performance on achievement tests (Abdi 2014; Blanchard et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2002). With the development and adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (National Research Council 2013), teachers have been further encouraged to step away from the traditional teaching of discrete facts to a broader exploration of the world around us via inquiry-based learning. Through collaborative programs, there is now more opportunity than ever to engage students in the process of meaningful, authentic science learning.

The Clean Air and Healthy Homes Program (CAHHP) is a science education outreach program designed to offer middle and high school students the opportunity to explore a real-world issue through authentic scientific research in their homes and communities. Originally named Air Toxics Under the Big Sky, the program has evolved and grown significantly since its inception in 2003 (Adams et al. 2008; Marra et al. 2011; Ward et al. 2008). Its success and growth can be largely attributed to its adherence to SENCER ideals and to the early influence and support from the SENCER community, as originally reported in this journal in 2007 by Jones et al.

Through CAHHP, students learn about three air pollutants (particulate matter, radon, and carbon monoxide) that not only cause adverse health effects, but are also commonly found in indoor environments such as homes and schools. Exposure to airborne particulate matter can result in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (Environmental Protections Agency 2016) while radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer behind cigarette smoke (National Cancer Institute n.d.). Carbon monoxide is responsible for an average of 15,000 poisonings and 500 deaths in the United States each year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2014). By participating in CAHHP, students begin to understand the link between their health and their own exposures through authentic research and data collection.

CAHHP takes place over the course of an entire school year and engages secondary school students living in rural areas of Montana, Idaho, and Alaska in scientific research focused on indoor air quality issues. This indoor component is an important focus, as the average American spends over ninety percent of his/her time indoors (Klepeis et al. 2001). Since the program’s inception in 2003, we have worked with thousands of students in more than 40 schools. In the current school year alone (2015/2016), we have more than 800 students doing research projects in the classrooms of 30 teachers. The program is being implemented in a variety of subject areas including chemistry, environmental science, physical science, IB Environmental Systems and Societies, and anatomy and physiology.

Overview of the Program

CAHHP has three primary goals: (1) to develop and provide inquiry-based, learner-centered instructional materials and opportunities; (2) to implement these materials in rural underserved areas; and (3) to provide professional development opportunities for teachers interested in environmental health sciences. The following overview summarizes the program’s activities throughout the course of a year.

Professional Development

The first step for a teacher who wants to implement the program in his/her classroom is to attend a two-day summer workshop. During this time, teachers learn about the three pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and radon), receive an overview of the available lesson plans, perform a number of the inquiry labs included in the program, discuss strategies for and the value of supporting student research, and receive training on the air sampling equipment that is provided to the classroom. Teachers also have the opportunity to interact with colleagues who teach in the same content areas to discuss classroom implementation strategies. Additionally, expert “veteran” teachers share insights on how to successfully support student research and integrate the program into the classroom.

Classroom Visits

The summer workshop is followed by a visit to the teachers’ classrooms, either in person or remotely via Skype, by a member of the CAHHP team. A presentation is given introducing students to concepts regarding air quality and respiratory health, including an overview of the program.

Lesson Plans and Supplemental Materials

Teachers have a number of lesson plans available to them for student exploration of the air pollutants throughout the school year. All lessons were developed in partnership with expert science teachers, as well as with research scientists in the field of environmental health sciences. Each lesson is tied to state and national standards and promotes the three-dimensional model of learning supported by the NGSS, as well as at least one guided inquiry lab illuminating a key concept related to one of the pollutants, its formation, and/or related health effects. A summary of all available lesson plans available through CAHHP can be found in Table 1. Table 2 displays the various learning units in which the lesson plans fit within a variety of classrooms.

Designing and Executing a Research Project

Once familiar with the pollutants, students identify a testable question and design a research project. To identify their questions, they are encouraged to consider the indoor environments in which they spend the majority of their time (home, school, and work) and what their potential pollutant exposures are within these environments. They are also encouraged to consider their communities and the specific, possibly seasonal, air quality issues that may impact them. Students can use one of three pieces of equipment provided by the program (see Figure 1) to perform their research. After identifying their question and developing a hypothesis, students then collect and analyze their data. Examples of student research projects from recent years are found in Table 3.

Presenting Findings

At the conclusion of each school year, students and teachers are invited to visit the university campus to attend the annual CAHHP Environmental Health Science Symposium, during which they present and defend their work either via a PowerPoint presentation before a panel of judges and between 100-200 of their peers, or through a scientific poster. The top three projects in each category receive awards. For many students, this is the highlight of their CAHHP experience. Evaluation data show that students benefit from participation in the symposium in a variety of ways (Vanek et al. 2011). For example, students have reported increased self-confidence in their ability to respond to challenging questions and potential criticism, as well as understanding the importance of being well prepared and practiced.

For students who cannot attend the symposium, there are many other options for formal presentation of student findings, including regional and state science fairs, community health fairs, and individual school events such as presenting research at parent night. Participation in one of these events is key, as findings from a study focused on inquiry-based science curricular initiatives developed between 1998 and 2007 found that only about 10 percent of projects emphasized presenting and communicating findings (Asay and Orgill 2010).

Beyond Student Learning Opportunities

In addition to providing meaningful learning opportunities, CAHHP encourages multiple community partnerships. Groups such as the American Lung Association, state, city, and county health departments, and Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) have created mutually beneficial relationships with CAHHP that expose students to possible future careers in the field of science and provide them an opportunity to do work directly for the community. For example, in a collaborative effort between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a student from a high school Geographic Information Systems (GIS) course, an interactive map of radon levels from more than 500 homes in the state was generated. This highlights not just the aspect of collaboration, but also the potential for citizen science opportunities. Data collected by students can be compiled, mapped, and used to inform the public and various agencies on trends in air pollution. Students also have the opportunity to directly improve the air quality in their schools and homes. One group of students found high levels of radon in their public school building and collaborated with a local radon mitigator to engineer and install a successful remediation system. Past monitoring of particulate matter levels in schools has resulted in heating/cooling system maintenance and even the replacement of the ventilation system in a wood shop at one school after consistently elevated particle levels were measured.

What Students are Taking Away from the Program

Findings from an external evaluation showed that students who participate in CAHHP demonstrate a deeper understanding of the process of science, and express an increased interest in science as a content area (Ward et al. 2016). Students also consistently self-report an increased confidence in their ability to do science. For example, one student wrote that “the program taught me that I can work hard and have the ability to conduct a thorough experiment and be confident in my skills,” while another reported, “The program taught me that I have the ability to accomplish anything I set my mind to and I became more interested in science.”

Other comments from students on their own experience and academic growth include:

• “It was cool doing an experiment to actually benefit my school”
• “[The program] made me aware of how science can be relevant to my everyday life”
• “I learned how to properly test a question”

Conclusion

The value of authentic science learning opportunities for secondary science students cannot be emphasized enough. As our results indicate, involving students in the actual process of science, from the ground up, creates learning opportunities that improve science skills and motivation.

Both of these are critical for keeping students engaged in the scientific field, as there is a delicate interplay between students having strong enough skills to feel confident pursuing science and their desire to do so. Over the last decade, The Clean Air and Healthy Homes Program has emerged as a successful platform for increasing students’ interest in science—and interest in science as a career— while keeping with current trends in science education. The development and implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (2013) are confirmation of the broader agreement that science learning needs to be multifaceted and must truly involve students in scientific ways of thinking and doing, not just in the memorization of scientific facts.

Additionally, when students do research within their own communities, they begin to realize that they have the ability to collect meaningful data and to use that information to directly make a difference in their own lives and those of others in their community. They become stake- holders in their own well-being and have the potential to make tangible changes through their research. They also have the opportunity to meet and interface with professionals whose lifework is committed to improving quality of life for the average citizen through science. The more science becomes a concrete practice for students and not a set of abstract ideas, the more likely they will use and engage in science in their daily lives. In this way, programs like CAHHP provide valuable opportunities to make science learning more meaningful and effective. In the future, we will continue to engage schools in rural and underserved areas, supporting students in conducting authentic research focused on reducing exposures to air pollution while improving health within their homes and communities.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center Resources and/or NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs under grant numbers R25RR020432 and R25OD010511.

About the Authors

Naomi Delaloye is the Education Coordinator at the Center for Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Montana, where she currently manages the Clean Air and Healthy Homes Project. She holds an MEd in Secondary Education and is a certified secondary science teacher with experience in classroom instruction, school curriculum development, and academic advising.

Earle Adams is an Associate Research Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at The University of Montana and functions as a General Chemistry Lab Coordinator and Instrument Manager of the NMR and Mass Spectroscopy facilities. Outreach activities include NIH SEPA, Montana State Science Fair, NSF-SENCER, and NSF-REU program.

Carolyn Hester works at the University of Montana in the Center for Environmental Health Sciences. She is a former secondary science teacher and has been developing curriculum and conducting workshops for the CAHHP program for the last eight years. She has a BS in Environmental Toxicology from U.C. Davis and a Secondary Broadfield Science Teaching Cer- tificate from the University of Montana.

Desirae Ware is a Project Manager at the Center for Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Montana. She holds a Master of Public Health degree and is also the Assistant Director of the Montana Science Fair.

Diana Vanek, communication coordinator for the UM CEHS Clean Air and Healthy Homes SEPA project, has worked as an anthropologist, researcher, and consultant in the fields of cultural resource management, biodiversity conservation, workforce development, and education on behalf of government agencies, tribal groups, and nonprofit organizations. Current outreach efforts include community collaborations and board service focusing on integrating citizen science projects with social and environmental justice initiatives.

Dr. Andrij Holian is Professor of Toxicology and Director of the Center for Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Montana. His research interests have focused on mechanisms of inflammation, but he has also retained an active interest in developing K-12 STEM educational materials during his career.

Tony Ward is an Associate Professor with the School of Public and Community Health Sciences (SPCHS) at the University of Montana, as well as a member of the Center for Environmental Health Sciences. In addition to teaching within the SPCHS, his research interests involve investigating indoor and ambient inhalational exposures common to residents of rural and underserved areas of the northern Rockies and Alaska.

References

Abdi, A. 2014. “The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students’ Academic Achievement in Science Course.” Universal Journal of Educational Research 2 (1): 37–41.

Adams, E., G. Smith, T.J. Ward, D. Vanek, N. Marra, D. Jones, and Striebel. 2008. “Air Toxics under the Big Sky: A Real-World Investigation to Engage High School Science Students.” Journal of Chemical Education 85 (2): 221–224.

Ainley, M., S. Hidi, and D. Berndorff. 2002. “Interest, Learning, and the Psychological Processes That Mediate Their Relationship.” Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (3): 545–561.

Asay, L.D., and M. Orgill. 2010. “Analysis of Essential Features of Inquiry Found in Articles Published in ‘The Science Teacher,’ 1998–2007.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 21 (1): 57–79.

Blanchard, M.R., S.A. Southerland, J.W. Osborne, V.D. Sampson, L.A. Annetta, and E.M. Granger. 2010. “Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?: A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction.” Science Education 94 (4): 577–616.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2014. “Quick-Stats: Average Annual Number of Deaths and Death Rates from Unintentional, Non-Fire-Related Carbon Monoxide Poisoning.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. January 24,   2014. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6303a6.htm (accessed July 6, 2016).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution (accessed July 6, 2016).

Hasni, A., and P. Potvin. 2015. “Student’s Interest in Science and Technology and Its Relationships with Teaching Methods, Family Context and Self-Efficacy.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 10 (3): 337–366.

Jones, D., T. Ward, D. Vanek, N. Marra, C. Noonan, G. Smith, and E. Adams. 2007. “Air Toxics Under the Big Sky – A High School Science Teaching Tool.” Science Education & Civic Engagement: An International Journal 1 (2): 51–55. http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/files/seceij/science_educa- tion_civic_engage_1270157423.pdf (accessed July 6, 2016).

Klepeis, N.E., W.C. Nelson, W.R. Ott, J.P. Robinson, A.M. Tsang, Switzer, J.V. Behar, S.C. Hern, and W.H. Engelmann. 2001. “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 11 (3): 231–252.

Marra, N., D. Vanek, C. Hester, A. Holian, T. Ward, E. Adams, and Knuth. 2011. “Evolution of the Air Toxics under the Big Sky Program.” Journal of Chemical Education 88 (4): 397–401.

National Cancer Institute. Radon and Cancer. http://www.cancer. gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/radon/ radon-fact-sheet (accessed July 6, 2016).

National Research Council (NRC). 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Palmer, D.H. 2009. “Student Interest Generated During an Inquiry Skills Lesson.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (2): 147–165.

Potvin, P., and A. Hasni. 2014. “Interest, Motivation and Attitude towards Science and Technology at K-12 Levels: A Systematic Review of 12 Years of Educational Research.” Studies in Science Education 50 (1): 85–129.

Rivera Maulucci, M. S., B.A. Brown, S.T. Grey, and S. Sullivan. (2014). “Urban Middle School Students’ Reflections on Authentic Science Inquiry.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 51 (9): 1119–1149.

Sadeh, I., and M. Zion. 2011. “Which Type of Inquiry Project Do High School Biology Students Prefer: Open or Guided?” Research in Science Education 42 (5): 831–848.

Schneider, R.M., J. Krajcik, R.W. Marx, and E. Soloway. 2002. “Performance of Students in Project-Based Science Classrooms on a National Measure of Science Achievement.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (5): 410–422.

Spronken-Smith, R., R. Walker, J. Batchelor, B. O’Steen, and T. Angelo. 2012. “Evaluating Student Perceptions of Learning Processes and Intended Learning Outcomes under Inquiry Approaches.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (1): 57–72. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.496531

Swarat, S., A. Ortony, and W. Revelle. 2012. “Activity Matters: Understanding Student Interest in School Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (4): 515–537.

Vanek, D., N. Marra, C. Hester, D. Ware, A. Holian, T. Ward, R. Knuth, and E. Adams. 2011. “The Power of the Symposium: Impacts from Students’ Perspectives.” Rural Educator 32 (3): 22–28.

Ward, T., Delaloye, N., Adams, E., D. Ware, D. Vanek, R. Knuth, Hester, N. Marra, and A. Holian. 2016. “Air Toxics Under the Big Sky: Examining the effectiveness of authentic scientific research on high school students’ science skills and interest.” International Journal of Science Education 38(6): 905-921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167984

Ward, T., D. Vanek, N. Marra, A. Holian, E. Adams, D. Jones, and R. Knuth. 2008. “The Big Sky Model: A Regional Collaboration for Participatory Research on Environmental Health in the Rural West.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 12 (3): 103–115.

Download (PDF, 613KB)

Abstract

A new interdisciplinary, introductory, undergraduate science course was designed to help students develop science literacy, defined as decision-making about challenging, science-based issues in social contexts. The course, required of all undergraduates in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) and reaching approximately five hundred students each year, affords a structured classroom setting in which students practice making decisions about local, regional, and global issues at the intersection of science and society (e.g., economics, politics, and values ethics). The goal of this paper is to provide theoretical grounding and rationale for the course, to describe key features intended to support students’ developing decision-making competencies, and to outline initial observations and reflections that inform longer-term research and development efforts associated with the course.

Introduction

The idea of “science literacy” lies at the heart of reform efforts in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform and serves as a primary rationale and global vision for the impact of systemic K-16 science education on civics and society. The National Research Council (1996, 21) has defined science literacy as “the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.” Science education researchers have historically viewed science literacy as the set of STEM knowledge, orientations, and competencies that enable individuals to engage effectively with a multitude of challenging, science-based issues at the intersection of science and society, often referred to as socioscientific issues (SSIs) (Feinstein 2011; Kolsto 2001a; Sadler 2004; Sadler and Zeidler 2009). However, there remains a multitude of perspectives on how science literacy should be cultivated in both formal and informal learning environments. Many emphasize the need for individuals to simply know more science. However, as Mullen and Roth state, “You can know all you need to know about your world and still not know what to do, which choices to make” (2002, 1). A key distinction must therefore be made between supporting students simply to learn science and supporting students to learn to use science (Bybee et al. 2009). To truly cultivate science literacy at a societal level, we must transcend the teaching of pre-determined bodies of disciplinary STEM knowledge. Instead, individuals must be actively supported to learn to leverage and employ this scientific knowledge; negotiate its intersection with social, cultural, and economic values; concretely identify relevant problems; evaluate real options for action; and move towards fundamentally different methods of accomplishing their goals. Science literacy, then, must fundamentally foreground decision-making about SSIs and how individuals mobilize STEM to support this process.

The need to emphasize decision-making as part of science education has long been noted by the scientific community, such as the Association for the Advancement of Science (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989) and the National Research Council (1996), as well as by science educators themselves (Aikenhead 1985; Kolsto, 2006; Millar and Osborne 1998; Zeidler et al. 2005). As tomorrow’s voters, workers, policymakers, and consumers, postsecondary students—both STEM majors and non-majors—must be prepared to examine complex SSIs and make socially responsible, STEM-informed decisions about them. Institutions of higher education have a responsibility to prepare students for all facets of life, help them master “ Twenty-First Century Skills,” such as integrating knowledge and decision-making, and contribute to lifelong development of science literacy. Postsecondary science learning environments can afford undergraduate students a highly effective, interdisciplinary, and collaborative experience with the STEM dimensions of the lived world. These experiences, which exhibit key elements of effective undergraduate STEM teaching and learning (National Research Council 2015), are often grounded in innovative partnerships between faculty from STEM disciplines, education, and the social and behavioral sciences.

We firmly believe that enhanced decision-making capacity can be actively taught and supported. Making high-quality decisions about SSIs involves being deliberate, rational, and paying attention to uncertainties (Kahneman 2011). However, this is a difficult process, as individuals are prone to snap judgments that are quick, irrational, and subject to error. A limited body of research on undergraduate students’ decision-making about SSIs illustrates challenges they experience. These challenges include struggling to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of alternative outcomes and to reflect on their choices (Grace 2009), being prone to place more emphasis on values than on scientific information when considering alternative solutions (Grace and Ratcliffe 2002; Sadler 2004) and having difficulty integrating knowledge gained in science with real-world problems (Kolsto 2006; 2001b). However, insights from the decision sciences pro- vide insight into how to scaffold and support students’ learning specifically to engage in more sophisticated decision-making over time, for example, by making students aware of the common psychological traps that can bias decisions, as well as teaching specific skills for incorporating both technical information and personal values into decision-making (Arvai et al. 2004). As science instructors, we are uniquely positioned to help students slow down, reason through a problem, apply scientific evidence, and thoroughly examine choices (Covitt et al. 2013).

Science Literacy 101: Science and Decision-Making for a Complex World

We have designed a unique multidisciplinary undergraduate course entitled SCIL (Science Literacy) 101: Science and Decision-Making for a Complex World. The course is an introductory course required for all majors in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (CASNR) at UNL. During any given semester, the students include those from a range of STEM majors (two-thirds of the students) and non-majors (one-third). Most of the students (eighty to ninety percent) are first- year students. The course has been recently overhauled and redesigned with the primary objective of supporting students’ science-informed decision-making. Throughout the course, students practice making science-informed decisions about topics such as water, energy resources, conservation of biodiversity, and food production using creative decision-making tools whose development was informed by theory and research from STEM education and the decision sciences (Arvai et al. 2004; Feinstein et al. 2013; Kolsto 2001a; Ratcliffe 1997).

Course Structure

The course is organized around (a) a lecture component with approximately 120 students per lecture section who meet for two seventy-five-minute blocks each week for the first ten weeks of the semester, and (b) associated recitation sections that meet each week for fifty minutes for fifteen weeks. During the last five weeks of the semester the lecture does not meet so students can focus on their final projects in their small groups associated with each recitation. Each lecture lesson is characterized by innovative active learning teaching strategies including think-pair-share, in-depth learning activities, large and small group discussion, and clicker questions (Eddy and Hogan 2014; Freeman et al. 2014; Haak et al. 2011; Lane and Harris 2015), peer instruction in assigned permanent groups of three or four (Cortright et al. 2005; Crouch and Mazur 2001), and the use of a Learning Assistant model. We used a Learning Assistant model for conceptual learning improvement (Smith 2009) and to reduce the student-to-instructor ratio and develop a more connected classroom community. A graduate student Learning Assistant is assigned to each recitation section, leading small-group discussions and assisting the primary instructor in the lecture class meetings.

SSI-based decision-making assignments

The course is designed around two-week modules focusing on four salient SSIs to students living in Nebraska: (1) Should we hunt mountain lions in Nebraska? (2) Should we further restrict the amount of water used for agriculture in Nebraska? (3) Should we use corn ethanol for a transportation fuel? and (4) Should you eat organic food? For each of these SSIs, students are asked to investigate the economic, environmental, ethical, social, and cultural aspects relevant to the problem and to develop opinions about each SSI based on their values and scientific information. During each unit, the students have two main points of individual assessment. The first assessment asks students to evaluate claims and evidence related to each issue in both popular media articles and primary research journal articles. Then the students are asked what information they still need about the issue in order to form an opinion or make a decision. The students then seek this information and evaluate whether or not they have been successful in finding trustworthy information that answers their question. The second assessment asks students to follow a seven-step decision-making process based on previous work (Ratcliffe 1997) to explain what they think could be done to solve the problem while integrating scientific information that they have researched. The decision-making steps are as follows:

1. Define the Problem: What is the crux of the problem as you see it?
2. Options: What are the options? (Discuss and list the possible solutions to the )
3. Criteria: How are you going to choose between these options? (Discuss important considerations and what is valued in an )
4. Information: Do you have enough information about each option? What scientific evidence is involved in this problem? What additional information do you need to help you make the decision?
5. Advantages/Disadvantages: Discuss each option weighed against the What are the tradeoffs of each option?
6. Choice: Which option do you choose?
7. Review: What do you think of the decision you have made? How could you improve the way you made the decision?

This framework is based on a heuristic developed by Ratcliffe (1997) to address areas of students’ difficulty in decision-making. We have found it to be a useful tool to support students while decision-making about SSIs because of its clarity, simplicity, and wide applicability to issues. This heuristic for decision-making has been used in subsequent studies at a high school level with conservation biology topics (Grace 2009; Grace and Ratcliffe 2002; Lee and Grace 2010). Student responses to these two major assessments are graded via a rubric that primarily evaluates them on the basis of comprehensiveness, sound reasoning, and clear and compelling explanations or arguments.

Data Collection

We collected data with the purpose of giving a general description of broad patterns in students’ reasoning before and after their class. Before instruction and after instruction, the students were asked to respond to “what we should do?” and “why should we do it/not do it?” about the four SSIs (for full question texts see Appendix A). In order to shorten our pre/post testing format, a subset of randomly selected students from two lecture sections taught by the same instructor received any given question. Individuals received identical questions pre and post. In a previous iteration of the course taught in Fall 2014 without the decision-making heuristic, we observed that students tended toward extreme “pro” or “con” views around each issue (Dauer and Forbes 2015). We coded the student responses before and after the Fall 2015 course to determine the number of students with “pro,” “con,” or “moderate” stances towards each issue, which allowed us to understand the degree to which each issue was polarizing, how many students changed their stance on an issue, and how many students had “moderate” stances that included consideration of potential alternative courses of action and positive or negative consequences of these actions.

Preliminary Observations and Reflections

The revised course using the decision-making heuristic was taught for the first time in the Fall of 2015. We found that a significant number of the students (twenty-five to thirty-eight percent across all four issues) changed their stances between pre- and post-assessment (Dauer and Forbes 2015). Other researchers acknowledge “changing one’s mind” as a sign that effective reasoning and argumentation has occurred in the classroom (Grace 2009; Osborne, 2001). The overall pattern of student stances was significantly different between the pre- and post- assessment for each issue (Chi-square test; P<0.05 for organic, mountain lion and biofuel issues, P=0.054 for water issue). The number of students with a “moderate” stance decreased for the hunting mountain lion and organic food issues. For the irrigation and corn ethanol issues, there was a small increase in students with moderate stances. For these students, the moderate stance often reflected a more nuanced, informed and objective view on the issue. An example of a student who shifted from a “con” position on the pre-assessment to a more “moderate” position on the post-assessment is shown in Table 1. Other students exhibited more thorough and systemic reasoning to shift from a “pro” stance to a “moderate” stance, as shown for another student in Table 2. Some students exhibited increased learning about the parameters of the issue resulting in a shift from a “pro” stance to a “moderate” stance, as shown for another student in Table 3.

While we observed stronger, more sophisticated reasoning in some students’ responses, more data analysis needs to be conducted to describe patterns in students’ reasoning and to determine if the quality of students’ arguments improved at the end of the course. Ongoing work is focused on determining if students were effective in using the seven decision-making steps in the context of the course, and if this practice influences students’ informal decision-making about complex socioscientific issues.

Conclusions

The work presented here provided a foundation upon which to build a long-term research agenda around an innovative, high-enrollment course and engage in ongoing, empirically grounded instructional design. The course provides an opportunity for future work to describe how students leverage values versus scientific knowledge and information to solve complex socioscientific problems. Our long-term research goal in this setting is to reveal challenges for undergraduate students in integrating scientific information into real-world processes. This research will inform continued development of innovative teaching tools that guide postsecondary students in obtaining more robust science literacy skills.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Olivia Straka for coding assistance.

About the Authors

Jenny Dauer is an Assistant Professor of Science Literacy at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She is the lead instructor for SCIL 101. Her research interests include understanding how students mobilize knowledge and scientific evidence in their reasoning about socioscientific issues. Dr. Dauer has a Ph.D. from Oregon State University in Forest Science, an M.S. in Ecology, and a B.S. in Secondary Education from Penn State University.

Cory Forbes is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the School of Natural Resources and Coordinator for the IANR Science Literacy Initiative. Forbes is actively engaged in K-16 STEM education research and development efforts through multiple grant-funded projects. He holds a B.S. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and an M.S. in Science Education from the University of Kansas, and an M.S. in Natural Resources and a Ph.D. in Science Education from the University of Michigan.

References

Aikenhead, G.S. 1985. “Collective Decision Making in the Social Context of Science.” Science Education 69: 453–475.

Arvai, J.L., V.E.A. Campbell, A. Baird, and L. Rivers. 2004. “ Teaching Students to Make Better Decisions about the Environment: Lessons from the Decision Sciences.” The Journal of Environmental Education 36: 33–44.

Bybee, R., B. McCrae, and R. Laurie. 2009. “PISA 2006: An Assessment of Scientific Literacy.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46: 865–883.

Cortright, R.N., H.L. Collins, and S.E. DiCarlo. 2005. “Peer Instruction Enhanced Meaningful Learning: Ability To Solve Novel Problems.” Advances in Physiology Education 29: 107–111.

Covitt, B., C. Harris, and C.W. Anderson. 2013. “Evaluating Scientific Arguments with Slow Thinking.” Science Scope 37: 44–52.

Crouch, C.H., and E. Mazur. 2001. “Peer Instruction: Ten years of Experience and Results.” American Journal of Physics 69: 970–977.

Dauer, J., and C. Forbes.2015. “A socioscientific framework for teaching a general science literacy course.” Presented at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research, Minneapolis, MN.

Eddy, S.L., and K.A. Hogan. 2014. “Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work?” Cell Biology Education 13: 453–468.

Feinstein, N. 2011. “Salvaging Science Literacy.” Science Education 95: 168–185.

Feinstein, N.W., S. Allen, and E. Jenkins. 2013. “Outside the Pipeline: Reimagining Science Education for Nonscientists.” Science 340: 314–317.

Freeman, S., S.L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M.K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, Jordt, and M.P. Wenderoth. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 8410–8415.

Grace, M. 2009. “Developing High Quality Decision-Making Discussions about Biological Conservation in a Normal Classroom Setting.” International Journal of Science Education 31: 551–570.

Grace, M.M., and M. Ratcliffe. 2002. “The Science and Values That Young People Draw Upon to Make Decisions about Biological Conservation Issues.” International Journal of Science Education 24: 1157–1169.

Haak, D.C., J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman. 2011. “Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology.” Science 332:1213–1216.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Reprint edition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kolsto, S.D. 2006. “Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk-Focused Socio-Scientific Issue.” International Journal of Science Education 28: 1689–1716.

Kolsto, S.D. 2001a. “Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with the Science Dimension of Controversial Socioscientific Issues.” Science Education 85: 291–310.

Kolsto, S.D. 2001b.”’ To trust or Not To Trust,…’—Pupils’ Ways of Judging Information Encountered in a Socio-Scientific Issue.” International Journal of Science Education 23: 877–901.

Lane, E.S., and S.E. Harris. 2015. “A New Tool for Measuring Student Behavioral Engagement in Large University Classes.” Journal of College Science Teaching 44: 83–91.

Lee, Y.C., and M. Grace. 2010. “Students’ Reasoning Processes in Making Decisions about an Authentic, Local Socio-Scientific Issue: Bat Conservation.” Journal of Biological Education 44:156–165.

Millar, R., and J. Osborne. 1998. Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future: A Report with Ten Recommendations. London: King’s College London, School of Education.

Mullen, J., and B. Roth. 2002. Decision Making: Its Logic and Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

National Research Council. 2015. Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Osborne, J. 2001. “Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science.” Presented at the European Science Education Research Association, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Ratcliffe, M. 1997. “Pupil Decision-Making about Socio-Scientific Issues within the Science Curriculum.” International Journal of Science Education 19: 167–182.

Rutherford, J.F., and A. Ahlgren. 1989. Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Sadler, T.D. 2004. “Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41: 513–536.

Sadler, T.D., and D.L. Zeidler. 2009. “Scientific Literacy, PISA, and Socioscientific Discourse: Assessment for Progressive Aims of Science Education.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46: 909–921.

Smith, 2009. “Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions.” Science 323: 122–124.

Zeidler, D.L., T.D. Sadler, M.L. Simmons, and E.V. Howes. 2005. “Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education.” Science Education 89, 357–377.

Download (PDF, 607KB)

Abstract

Teaching geology and its relevance in urban environments is often challenging. “Muddy Waters,” a First-Year Experience course for non-majors, uses the concepts of water quality and quantity in an urban environment to introduce current urban environmental geology issues including flooding, wastewater treatment and disposal, and drinking water supply and treatment. Through extensive fieldwork and laboratory work, students investigate these concepts through various extended projects using different themes and then present their results to a variety of audiences. The course utilizes the extensive river and canal system in the Chicago area and topics of current interest to engage learners in the environmental geology that may go unnoticed by the majority of our urban students. Results show that students become more aware of where their drinking water comes from, what happens to waste-water, the severity and frequency of flooding, and engineering techniques implemented to lessen the impacts of flooding in surrounding neighborhoods.

Introductions

Connecting urban students to the geological aspects of their environment can be challenging—more or less so, depending on the geographic setting. In the geologically “plain” setting of Chicago, where there are few visual indicators of geology, students generally lack awareness of, and therefore interest in, the natural processes that shaped their environment. Add to this a public school system that only rarely offers high school earth science courses, and the result is geologically and in turn environmentally disconnected students. At Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU), in northern Chicago, this disconnect from the physical environment may be compounded by student demographics. Nearly 50 percent of incoming freshman are Hispanic, a population traditionally underrepresented in geology and STEM disciplines. About fifty-three percent are first-generation college students. Most do not have role models who have been exposed to the existence, importance, or relevance of career opportunities within the geosciences or STEM and therefore do not readily choose Earth Science as a major (see Table 1.)

We attempted to address these issues by creating and implementing a First-Year Experience (FYE) Program course titled Muddy Waters: Chicago’s Environmental Geology (ESCI 109W). Like all courses in our FYE Program, the course integrates discipline-specific content (e.g. urban environmental geology) with college success skills (e.g. time management). Discipline-specific content of Muddy Waters focuses on water quality and quantity issues that are timely and relevant in a city where rivers and lakes are key features. Using themes of water quality and quantity, we developed field and laboratory activities designed to build a sense of connection to the Chicago area while ad- dressing current and relevant environmental issues. The course involves extensive hands-on experiences highlighting human impact in an urban environment connected to geology. All class projects are set in the Chicago area, primarily the local neighborhood; field activities, laboratory work, and collection and interpretation of online data address specific content-related areas of interest.

Course Design

We designed the course to provide students with a sense of how urban environmental geology is relevant to their lives and to the city in which they live. Given the diverse makeup of first-year students at NEIU, course elements also aim to increase diversity within the geosciences and STEM disciplines. Through the design and delivery of the course, we strive to help students understand that a career in geology is a legitimate, relevant, exciting, accessible, and attainable goal.

Specific course objectives are that students will learn to do the following:

1. Compile an organized record of data and supporting information from various sources (field, laboratory, class presentations, readings, research), optimized for the student’s individual learning style.
2. Distinguish landscape changes effected by stream, lake, and coastal processes; critically analyze patterns of change in water bodies to predict continuing/ future changes.
3. Evaluate the impact of geologic factors on human activities in Chicago (water and waste management, stormwater and sewage treatment/control, construction, ) and the effect of human activities on analyzed parameters of water quality and quantity.
4. Apply identified strategies to maximize student achievement of short-term and long-term academic goals through self-knowledge, navigating the university environment, and effective planning.

Here we present the course structure, highlighting activities designed to achieve the course objectives and goals.

Course Projects

The course is structured around five main projects through which students engage in learning activities that provide them with exposure to relevant geological issues and opportunities to learn content and skills and to practice applying what they learn as they work to complete the projects. The identified projects are titled “Chicago Rivers,”“Thirsty City,”“The Great Debate,”“H2O: Where Does it Go?,”and “The Balancing Act.” The project-based learning strategy provides students opportunities to actively explore real-world problems, work collaboratively, and become personally engaged with the material. The approach challenges them to think critically and gain a new appreciation of the role of geology in their own lives (Movahedzadeh et al. 2014). The projects incorporate group work (McConnell et al. 2005), role-playing and debate (Gautier and Rebich 2005), experience-based learning (Apedoe et al. 2006), and a variety of presentation modes (poster, oral, peer review) as methods to engage the students.

Collaborative learning activities influence “how students think,” promoting development of higher-order thinking skills and improvement of reasoning among non-major students in introductory geoscience classes (McConnell et al. 2005).“Overwhelmingly favorable” changes to student performance on learning outcomes were reported by Apedoe et al. (2006) for a geoscience course utilizing inquiry-based pedagogy, but they also acknowledged initial challenges for students in adjusting to their more active role, compared to a teacher-centered classroom. The Muddy Waters course utilizes discovery, balanced with guidance and instructor support particularly at the start of the term, to familiarize students with this role. Gautier and Rebich (2005) demonstrated improved student learning outcomes with respect to complex systems, such as the urban Chicago hydrologic system that is the focus of the Muddy Waters course, through a learner-centered environment that includes role-playing and group work. Their assessment of a “Mock Environmental Summit” showed enhanced student learning of content and critical skills and improved presentation skills, while fostering civic engagement with an issue: all of these are goals built into the project constructs of the Muddy Waters course.

Chicago Rivers

NEIU is located in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago, prone to flooding by the North Branch of the Chicago River. One-hundred year flooding events in 2008 and 2013 resulted in closure of NEIU’s campus and surrounding streets. Students visit the river and measure stream velocity and discharge. One exciting aspect for the students is the opportunity to directly wade into the river to take measurements. Students visit a nearby stream gage operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and later collect data from that gage and others in the region.

Through these activities, students are exposed to methods and equipment directly related to phenomena that impact the community. They become aware that streamflow monitoring and flood-prevention strategies are occurring right under their noses. As a final product, students collect online data on streamflow, create flood-frequency curves, calculate probabilities and discharges for flows of different recurrence intervals, and examine Flood Insurance Rate Maps for a specific area. Students present a poster that includes their results along with recommendations for reducing or minimizing flood damage.

Thirsty City

In this project, student teams investigate Chicago’s municipal water system from drinking water source to waste-water discharge. Many students confuse the role of Lake Michigan (the regional source of drinking water) and roles of the local river/canal system (removal of treated wastewater). Questions posed address where our drinking water comes from and how it is treated to make it potable, what happens to wastewater/sewage and how it is treated before if it is discharged to local waterways, and where the treated wastewater goes after it leaves the Chicago area. Field sites include Lake Michigan beaches and the discharge point of treated wastewater into a canal. Students collect samples for analysis and make field measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved solids, and temperature from both field sites. They learn basic laboratory methods and colorimetric techniques to measure sulfate, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, and fluoride in their samples and then analyze tap water to see if drinking water treatment affects these parameters. Students compare their results to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As a final product, teams present posters displaying results of their measurements along with research on a specific aspect of the water treatment process (e.g. fluoridation, primary wastewater treatment, secondary treatment) assigned to each team. The resulting poster session is structured so that visitors begin by viewing posters describing the drinking water source and end with wastewater treatment and discharge, simulating the flow through the municipal water system.

The Great Debate

Current local issues are used to engage students in scientific exploration and inquiry related to a real-life matter of contention. Examples of recent topics have included, “Should the City of Chicago disinfect treated wastewater?” and “Should flow of the Chicago River be restored to its natural direction, towards Lake Michigan?” This project is often jump-started by current news stories or opinion articles. The class is divided into teams representing different perspectives on the question. Each team is assigned the role of a type of organization chosen deliberately to represent the competing and various interests represented in modern day environmental issues: governments concerned about revenue and costs (e.g. City of Chicago), advocacy groups focusing on sustainability and protection of natural resources (e.g. Friends of the Chicago River), regulatory agencies (e.g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), municipalities impacted by the issue (e.g. downstream locations), or those organizations directly involved (e.g. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District). Using previously gained knowledge, students investigate each side of the issue and collect data to formulate and support their arguments. Questions outlining the topics are provided to launch the research. For example, in the debate over disinfection, students were given these prompts:

1. Draw a flow chart illustrating how water from Lake Michigan may end up in the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.
2. Describe eutrophication, and explain its relationship to discharge of wastewater and the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone.
3. Illustrate the basic steps in sewage treatment.

The project culminates in a formal, structured, in-class debate that is evaluated with a rubric for the factual content of arguments, logical presentation, and communication skills.

H20: Where Does It Go?

This project addresses water usage and water management on the NEIU campus. Groups of students play the role of environmental consulting firms, hired by the campus Facilities Management office to assess tap water usage, wastewater generation and management, and stormwater management. Students are tasked with creating a professional-looking consulting report with suggestions on how to do the following:

1. Minimize the quantity of tap water used on campus.
2. Minimize the quantity of water exiting campus through sanitary sewers.
3. Minimize the quantity of water leaving campus through stormwater runoff.

To introduce the project, students are led on a field trip throughout the campus and asked to identify how water, specifically stormwater runoff, moves through different areas of campus (parking lots, grassy areas, storm sewers, detention basin). Students are introduced to concepts of infiltration and surface runoff through a discussion of the hydrologic cycle within their urban environment, emphasizing both natural and anthropogenic aspects. Another campus field trip identifies locations of underground water vaults at points where the city tap water enters the campus and initiatives designed to better manage stormwater, such as sections of permeable pavement and native vegetation plantings. Involving the campus Chief Engineer, who participates in the field trips and provides a new perspective on the nuts and bolts of the institutional efforts to manage water, especially engages students with this real-life issue on their campus.

As part of their consulting report, students must provide data on quantities of tap water used by NEIU, water precipitating on campus, and water leaving campus through storm sewers each year. Students collect annual precipitation data from the NOAA website and calculate campus area using maps. They then calculate total volume of precipitation, requiring unit conversions and understanding the difference between linear, areal, and volume measurements. The final report includes data on water usage and management as well as descriptions of how tap water is used, where sanitary sewage is produced, and what happens to precipitation that falls on campus, along with the students’ recommendations on minimizing tap water usage, minimizing wastewater production, and minimizing the stormwater leaving campus. Given the level of mathematics required for this project and the level of math proficiency of incoming students, this is a very challenging project. Our goal is that students see how mathematics and science are utilized on their own campus, for an issue in which they have a personal stake.

The Balancing Act

In the final project of the course, students calculate annual water budgets for local watersheds. Building on concepts learned in“H2O: Where Does It Go?” and“Chicago Rivers,” this project challenges students with calculations of area and volume, unit conversions, and gathering and analyzing actual data. Students are assigned a watershed, a NOAA precipitation gage, and a USGS stream gage from which to gather online data. They calculate the total amount of water entering the watershed as precipitation and the total amount of water leaving the watershed as streamflow. They also are provided with total population and per capita water usage for their assigned watershed, with some notes on the sources of municipal water for the basin (for example, inter-basin transfer or ground water wells). A worksheet is provided to guide students as they organize and calculate inflows and outflows, and they are asked to fill in blanks with their calculated results for each component of the water budget. Students are prompted to calculate the yearly amount of evapotranspiration, which is not available online but must be estimated using inflow and outflow data; the value for evapotranspiration is used to balance the water budget.

Conclusion

Using a SENCER approach that considers a variety of community-related issues, we created a course that teaches fundamental scientific concepts, develops critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills, connects students to their community, and increases students’ awareness of the geologic world around them, specifically in the urban environment of Chicago. Development and implementation were initially funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award # 0914497), and the course has been successfully institutionalized. It has been taught ten times between 2010 and 2015, to a total of 159 students, and continues to be a popular course within our curriculum.

Initial analysis of data on the retention of students who have taken the course (compared to students who took a different FYE course and those who took none at all) is presented in Table 2. Also shown are the percentages of students in these groups who have declared a major in a STEM field, and graduation rates. With the smaller pool of students who have taken Muddy Waters, we expect to see the variation shown in the data. We also have considered the relative difficulty of a natural science laboratory course for first-year students compared to other non-STEM FYE courses. Further analysis of these data, including a separate accounting for retention of STEM majors, a comparison of the courses taken by Muddy Waters students following this course with those taken by other students, and demographic analysis is warranted to further explore the trends and variation seen here.

Given the nature of the course, there are particular challenges that we encountered in its design, implementation, and delivery. Some of these challenges are those that are common to many First-Year Experience courses (e.g. delivering content-related material at an appropriate level, incorporation of student success skills training). Challenges specific to this laboratory course in the natural sciences include

1. Generating and capturing student interest by making the projects personally relevant to a diverse body of students.
2. Engaging students who have a wide range of mathematical, reading, and writing preparation and skills.
3. Given the large amount of group work and cooperative learning, assembling groups with positive dynamics that represent the wide variety of preparation mentioned above and providing all of the students with the opportunity to learn from each other.
4. Determining the scaffolding of mathematical skills appropriate for the projects in order to support student success.
5. Overcoming the initial hesitation on the part of the students to some of the field (This hesitation quickly abated after the first field sessions for the most part.)
6. Handling the logistics involved with transportation and access to field sites.

Moving forward, we continue to modify the course to keep the topics current and, what is even more important, personally relevant to the students. Along with this we will continue to develop the skill sets needed by the students to successfully complete the course. We continue to seek innovative and novel ways to increase the relevance of geoscience and STEM-related professions and academic tracks. Another outcome of the course was the expressed desire of our Earth Science majors to have us offer them a similar course at a major level, especially once they observed the field and laboratory activities that were central to the course. We plan to develop such a major-level course in the future. We have successfully used Muddy Waters as a recruitment pool for research opportunities geared for early-career undergraduate students (USDA-NIFA Hispanic-Serving Institutions Grant Program Award # 2010-02071) and are currently preparing a manuscript on these results. Overall, we will continue to focus on methods and approaches to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in the STEM disciplines, and more specifically in the geosciences.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support of Assistant Provost of Student Success and Retention Barbara Sherry and the First-Year Experience Program at Northeastern Illinois University. We also thank Hoa Khuong and Blase Masini of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment for providing data on enrollments, continuation, and graduation rates. This work was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award # 0914497).

About the Authors

Kenneth M. Voglesonger (Ph.D. Geology) is an Assistant Professor and Department Coordinator of the Earth Science Department at Northeastern Illinois University. His areas of expertise are aqueous geochemistry, geomicrobiology, and hydrothermal geochemistry. He is currently involved in numerous initiatives to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in undergraduate research and in the geosciences in particular.

Jean Hemzacek (M.S. Geology) is an Instructor of Earth Science at Northeastern Illinois University, with areas of expertise and experience in clay minerals, mineralogy, and soil science. Her move to teaching followed a career of mineral research and applications in the mining industry. She is passionate about student engagement in STEM and innovative pedagogies to enhance learning, from first-year experiences through advanced research opportunities for STEM majors.

Laura L. Sanders (Ph.D. Applied Geology) is Professor of Earth Science at Northeastern Illinois University, with areas of expertise in hydrology, ground water geology, and environmental geology. In 30 years of teaching at Northeastern, she has directed dozens of master’s theses and scores of undergraduate research projects. She is a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture E. Kika de la Garza Fellow.

References

Apedoe, X.S., S.E. Walker, and T.C. Reeves. 2006. “Integrating Inquiry-based Learning into Undergraduate Geology.” Journal of Geoscience Education 54: 414–421.

Gautier, C., and S. Rebich. 2005. “The Use of a Mock Environmental Summit to Support Learning about Global Climate Change.” Journal of Geoscience Education 53: 5–16.

McConnell, D.A., D.N. Steer, K.D. Owens, and C. Knight. 2005. “How Students Think: Implications for Learning in Introductory Geoscience Courses.” Journal of Geoscience Education 53: 462–470.

Movahedzadeh, F., A. Linzemann, E. Quintero, J. Aveja, W. Thompson, and M. Martyn. 2014. “Life in and around the Chicago River: Achieving Civic Engagement through Problem Based Learning.” Science Education and Civic Engagement: An International Journal 7 (1): 35–41.

Download (PDF, 765KB)