Lesson Plan for Environmental
Forum Module (October 2008)
Purpose:
The Environmental Forum (eForum) module provides a unique
setting for in-depth explorations of both the science and societal
challenges posed by regionally important environmental problems.
Students work both as a class and with other students across the
internet to understand problems and to seek solutions that are broadly
acceptable to their communities. Because eForums include research on
environmental science, land management decisions, economic decisions,
community decision making and citizenship, and the role of government,
and include the use of persuasive writing and debate based on that
research, they are appropriate for courses in general science, biology,
environmental science, social science, vocational-agriculture, and
language arts courses. This is a High School activity because of
the critical thinking skills required. A
general instructional procedure
for the eForum module is provided, as well as specific instructions for
each eForum topic:
Stream Cleaner Environmental Forum and
Oh Deer!
Environmental Forum and links to content standards. |
 |
The Environmental Forums are an example of Project Based
Learning, where students seek a solution to a complex problem through a
collaborative process over an extended period of time. When the eForum
is coupled with hands-on conservation or research projects it provides a
Meaningful Watershed Education Experience (MWEE), an expansive form of
project based learning that is a curriculum requirement in MD, VA, PA,
and D.C. To learn more about PBL and MWEEs, click
here.
Web Based Tools:
v
Interactive Learning Activities:
Environmental Forum
Two eForums are currently available:
-
The
Oh Deer! eForum
- Students investigate the problem of deer overpopulation, an
example of problems caused by ecosystems out of balance that require
an effective societal response.
-
The SCE Forum (Stream Cleaner
Environmental Forum) -
Students investigate the causes of and solutions for non-point
source pollution in the context of the regional effort to clean up
the Chesapeake Bay. Participating schools will have a chance to
receive support for an on-the-ground project at or near their
schools.
Both eForums have a common structure:
-
Part 1,
available year round, is background reading and investigation guided
by the web-based lessons and activities,
-
Part 2,
open for 3-4 weeks each Fall and Spring, facilitates a dialogue
between participating students so they can interact with their peers
and create a community of learning across the web.
In eForums, students:
-
Explore the science and societal
dynamics of complicated environmental issues,
-
Roll play to form stakeholder groups
(such as farmers, homeowners, fishermen, etc.) and develop "point
of view" (POV) position papers that are posted on the web for other
students to investigate. All POV submissions are reviewed by a
moderator prior to posting each day,
-
Challenge each other's stakeholder
POVs within their class and across the internet by having a Thoughtful
Discussion - TD (formerly Thoughtful Questions), peer-review
dialogue facilitated by a moderator and controlled submission
process,
-
Regroup as a class
to seek socially and environmentally acceptable solutions to the
problem by addressing stakeholder concerns and develop a general
consensus that respects the
needs of all stakeholder groups.
The website includes embedded
information and links that explain key eForum “process” concepts such
as: stakeholder, what is a stakeholder Point of View, what is consensus,
and how to achieve consensus. This information should also be of use to
help the teacher in facilitating the exercise.
There are certain minimum
requirements for a class to take part in the eForum:
-
Access to the internet on reasonably fast lines. Dialup would be
possible, but would probably be a bit of a drag.
-
Multiple computers available for the class to use, so that each
stakeholder group (at a minimum) has a computer available.
-
Classes/students are expected to spend at least 1-1/2 to 2 hours
during the Part 1 phase of the eForum, doing background reading and
research on the site and across the web. The background research
can be done in class or out, and can include a mixture of
self-directed reading by students and lectures by teachers (see
lesson plans).
-
As a minimum to participate in the multi-school dialogue (Part 2),
a class must be able to commit to three classes (45 minutes or more
for each) where student groups have access to the internet.
Since the background reading
material and links are available at any time, it is possible for
individual classes to do the activity totally within their classrooms,
develop their stakeholder POVs, TQs, and consensus exercises, and never
talk to another school. That would be sad, because the interschool
dialogue is the best part.
Instructional Procedure:
The two eForums have a common structure
that allows a common instructional procedure. The common procedure is
discussed first, followed by specific suggestions for the “Oh Deer!” and
SCE Forums.
Part 1
is background reading and investigation guided by the web-based lessons
and activities. The instructional content included in each eForum was
designed to provide a substantive and broad overview of the topic being
investigated. We strongly encourage teachers to incorporate eForum
content into their classroom lessons well before the internet-dialogue
portion of a Forum begins. Students will benefit from advance exposure
to key subject matter found on the Forum's home page. The site includes
numerous links to information from various agencies, organizations,
studies, and articles. We used these links because they provide either:
objective science alone, policy positions based on good science, solid
explanatory material, or illustrate examples of effective or ineffective
decision making. It doesn't mean the Potomac Highlands Watershed School
advocates for a certain viewpoint, or necessarily supports their
position on conservation or natural ecosystem restoration. We include
most because they do not let their personal wishes and biases obscure
objective fact, which is how all viable policy should be developed. We
also include essays from professionals – “Native Guides” - who work on
the eForum topic in some capacity to provide their personal perspectives
on the process and the problems; these essays were written specifically
for the eForum.
Suggested delivery methods range from:
-
A hands-off approach by the teacher
in which students work on computers individually and read the
material on the site, follow suggested links, and assimilate the
content,
-
A directed approach where the teacher
has a series of lectures around the content, projecting (if this is
an option) selections from the site onto a screen in the classroom
for presentation and discussion,
-
A combination of the above two
methods that also encourages “off-site” web searches to further
investigate topics of interest.
Part 2
is the 3-4 week multi-school dialogue phase of the activity, in which
students interact with their peers and create a community of learning
and problem solving across the web. They begin by forming stakeholder
groups that are relevant to the current eForum (such as farmers,
homeowners, foresters, fishermen, etc.) and develop "point of view" (POV)
position papers that are submitted via a web form or email and then
posted on the web for other students to investigate. POV posting is
followed by the Thoughtful Questions (TQ) phase where students challenge
the thinking in other group’s stakeholder POVs within their class and
across the internet. The TQs are entered via a web form, and are
reviewed each evening by a moderator prior to posting for the students
to see the next day. When the TQ phase is complete, students have an
opportunity to finalize their stakeholder POV statements before
regrouping as a class to develop a general consensus position that
respects the needs of all stakeholder groups and provides a viable
solution to the problem. And now for some Part 2 details:
-
Forming stakeholder groups.
By the time the stakeholder phase begins, students should have
considerable grounding in the eForum’s subject matter. We suggest
that each class spends some time discussing the fundamental concept
of the stakeholder (there are links in the eForum to help with
this). Following this, the teacher should facilitate a discussion
where students list all of the possible stakeholders for the topic
(e.g.: who is affected). A stakeholder group may fall into three
potential categories: stakeholders whose activities are a part of
the problem, stakeholders whose livelihood or quality of life are
impacted by the problem; and stakeholders who seek to fix the
problem through their work or avocation. It may turn out to be a
long list. Each eForum has a list of suggested general stakeholder
categories (farmer, homeowner, fisherman, etc.), based on prior
experience and the desire to mostly have the same stakeholder
categories in many of the classes to encourage, and somewhat
constrain the bounds of, dialogue. However, an “other” category
will always be offered for creative alternatives; for example, in
the 2006 Oh Deer! eForum we had a PETA group that inspired very
lively debate. Once the class has decided on their list of
stakeholders (at least 3 or 4), the teacher needs to divide the
class into these groups in whatever way they usually divide students
into groups. In doing this, teachers should consider that much of
the power of this activity occurs when students put their reality
out there for their classmates to see (the farmer who is struggling
to make it, the fisherman who falls when they go fishing because the
rocks are so slippery, the kid who was in an car accident where a
deer came crashing through the window, etc.). In order to help
other students during the Thoughtful Question phase, stakeholder
group names should be snappy and fun (the PETA group was Team Happy
Wolf); they should not be a list of student names. Stakeholder
groups should be encouraged to work as teams, where every student
functions as both an independent learner and as a member of a group
performing analytical thinking and communicating.
-
Writing Point of View (POV) position
papers. The
stakeholder group’s
first
job will be to write a persuasive “Point of View” statement that
describes why they are important, how the environmental problem
affects them, how the possible solutions affect them personally and
maybe impacts their livelihood. This means that they may need
to do more research on their group so they really understand it.
Their job is to inhabit the stakeholder position, acknowledge the
objective realities of their role in the problem (do they cause it,
are they hurt by it, are they trying to fix it), and to create
powerful, fact-based arguments for solutions that benefit them.
This is not the time to be pragmatic, this is the time to persuade
others about the rightness of their “cause.” Teachers might
consider having their students write POV research papers to begin
this process, but the submitted POVs should not be research papers.
POVs should be concise, persuasive, accessible, and short enough
that other students will read them and respond (250-600
words). Strong POVs
will include references to source material that supports their
position.
Students will
have two "bites at this apple." First when they originally
post their POV, and then students are welcome to modify and repost a
POV after being questioned by other students. Each group
should try to build a strong case for their group's position - based
on facts, not just belief. They should
consider these questions:
-
Will the solutions “cost” them in
any demonstrable way? What do they have to give up?
-
Will the solutions benefit them
directly?
-
What could be done that would
make their group more willing to participate in seeking a
solution?
-
How could the solutions be
structured so their group would prosper as a result?
-
What would happen if they were so
harmed by the process that they disappeared?
-
Thoughtful Discussion (formerly
Thoughtful Questions) phase.
During this phase stakeholder groups ask questions of other groups and the
moderator based on the posted POVs and previous questions. Not a
lot of rules here: students need to be reasonably on topic and
respectful, and understand that anyone who has access to the
internet will be able to read what they say (if it passes by the
Moderator - who doesn’t fix spelling or grammar). In the TD process
students should be encouraged in the wonderful process of peer
review, and should not be in the least shy in challenging the
factual basis or logic in other stakeholder group’s work. If a lot
of schools are participating, teachers might elect (and CI might
suggest) to have stakeholders confine their questions to within
their own stakeholder category so they form an internet community
working together to strengthen their hand in the negotiations to
come (for example, farmers would work with the farmers).
-
Consensus Plans.
Final Consensus Plans that balance the needs of all stakeholder groups
are negotiated in each classroom and posted to the web. It can be a
challenge to keep students on track. They need to remain advocates for
their own stakeholder position at the same time they work as willing
participants in a process that produces a plan that serves all of
society. Just as POVs must always be based on the facts, the class
consensus must also be based in objective reality. Students must
balance economic, cultural, emotional, and intellectual considerations
and produce a just policy. Strong Consensus Plans will include
references to source material that supports their position. The teacher
facilitates this process in the classroom. The eForum includes links to
three methods of facilitation we have found useful: The Fishbowl; Post A
POV; and The Big Election. We welcome teachers and others to send other
suggestions to us at Cacapon Institute. When this goes well, it is
really amazing.
Forming effective policy through the
democratic process is hard stuff, but it is the stuff of adult life in
America.
Specific Suggestions: Stream Cleaner Environmental Forum
Overview
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure
but, after years of pollution, it is in trouble. Each spring, high
school classes across the Chesapeake Bay watershed can participate in a
region-wide dialogue about the Chesapeake Bay watershed's problems and
propose their solutions to reduce non-point source pollution. For three
weeks students join classmates and students from other schools in
exploring one of the most complex environmental problems ever to
confront the United States - saving the Chesapeake Bay from decades of
pollution.
In every classroom, the SCEForum
should begin with students taking the survey that is found at the top of
the page. This survey will be
repeated at the end of the forum to assess what students learned, and
how attitudes may have changed.
In the SCE Forum Students learn about:
-
The science that is used to
understand the problems and monitor changes,
-
The computer models that are used to
predict the Bay's current condition and future,
-
The “best management practices” that
are used to reduce the flow of pollution from our lands to local
streams, larger rivers and, eventually, the Bay,
-
The politics of seeking solutions
acceptable to our diverse community, and
-
The challenge of fostering widespread
public acceptance and implementation of the entirely voluntary land
use changes needed to protect our local waters and the Bay
-
The challenge of paying for the
cleanup.
If that sounds like a lot of information
to digest, it is. We strongly encourage teachers to incorporate SCE
Forum content into their lessons well before multi-school dialogue (Part
2) begins.
The Potomac Highlands Watershed School
has placed information in the PHWS library, and added links to
information on other websites, in five key categories: water quality
science, the Chesapeake Bay models, Best Management Practices (BMPs),
the Tributary Strategy process, and understanding stakeholders. We also
have essays from professionals who work on Chesapeake Bay and related
issues to provide their perspectives on the process and the problems.
These “native guides” are:
-
Al Todd (Watershed Program Leader,
USDA Forest Service). Al provides a fine overview of the
restoration effort from the perspective of an insider in the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
-
Neil Gillies (Cacapon Institute)
provides perspective on the study of non point source pollutants in
headwater streams, specifically nutrients, based on real data from
CI's research.
-
Michael Schwartz (Environmental
Scientist at the Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute) has been
the West Virginia Tributary Team's point man on issues related to
the Chesapeake Bay's models, and he shares his thoughts on
watersheds and the use of models in environmental decision making.
-
Matt Monroe (Environmental
Coordinator for the WV Department of Agriculture) is a key player in
West Virginia's tributary strategy process, and provides his unique
point of view on the agricultural community's perspective.
-
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a non
profit organization with a mission to restore the Bay, works to
build consensus between groups to restore the Bay.
The SCE Forum begins with
background information that introduces basic concepts, followed by six
sections on: water quality science, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model,
the tributary strategies that each state developed to guide their
cleanup effort, the tools available used to reduce pollution - best
management practices – in the cleanup effort, stakeholder issues, and
how we might pay for the cleanup.
This is a significant amount
of material, and teachers in different disciplines may well decide to
focus their students on certain content areas. For example: science
teachers might focus on water quality science and use of predictive
models to understand complex systems; social studies teachers might
focus on the trib strategy process and how it is being carried out in
different states; vo-ag might focus on best management practices and
paying for cleanup; language arts might focus on the process or
persuasion using the written and spoken word. However, every student
should be familiar with the content in each section. As it tells the
students on the eForum home page, this can be done “by reading this page
carefully and then focusing on the links with a ☺ beside them.” The
same advice holds for participating teachers as well. The following
section highlights key points in each section.
Background.
-
Summary of West Virginia's Potomac
Tributary Strategy. Each of the Bay states established Tributary
Teams to develop strategies for reducing nutrients and sediment, and
to implement their strategies. Virtually all of the Bay cleanup
efforts revolve around these strategies. SCE Forum’s internal “trib
strategy” links tend to focus on West Virginia’s effort simply
because as a member of the WV Trib Team Cacapon Institute has
access to original documents (we were primary author of the report)
and can easily produce excerpts. We link to the other trib
strategies in the Tributary Strategy section.
-
Native Guide Al Todd (Watershed
Program Leader, USDA Forest Service) works very closely with the Bay
Program. He provides an insider’s overview of the Chesapeake Bay
Program efforts.
-
Students need to understand some
basic water quality terminology and concepts before proceeding.
There is a link to a short Water Quality Primer that defines
point source and non point source pollution, and
measuring pollutants as concentrations and determining total
amount of pollution as loads. These are all key terms. The
SCE Forum focuses on non point source pollution where reductions are
based on the actions of all citizens, rather than point source
pollution where reductions are based on technology applied to
specific pollution streams such as waste water treatment plants.
Scientists measure chemical constituents, such as nitrogen, as a
concentration - weight in a standard volume of water (typically
milligrams per liter). However, the measurement that is needed to
determine Bay impacts is what is known as “load” - which is well
defined in the Primer.
-
You should download this
Restoring and Protecting the Chesapeake Bay Powerpoint
presentation about the Bay (big file - 4 mb) and go through the
presentation with your class. It is very well done, with sufficient notes
to guide the teacher through the presentation.
-
Stream Cleaner
flash activity. Stream Cleaner is a deceptively simple game
of strategy where players try to clean up a rural stream polluted by
excess nutrients and sediment – the key Bay pollutants - by
selecting the best combination of land management practices to apply
to agricultural and city land before they run out of money.
Students enjoy “playing” Stream Cleaner, often saying “it was easy”
when done. However, it introduces most of the key concepts in the
SCE Forum: non point source pollution, different land uses deliver
different amounts of pollution to streams, there are natural sources
of nutrients and sediment that provide needed resources to aquatic
systems, individuals can change management of their land and reduce
pollution using best management practices (BMPs), different
best management practices are more effective at reducing pollution
than others and they cost different amounts if money to implement,
and there are no silver bullets that fix the problem – you need to
use a suite of BMPs to have a large impact. All of these lessons
are introduced in the ten minutes it takes to play, and it would be
worthwhile to take some class time to discuss these lessons.
Stream Cleaner has its own lesson plan with a number of
suggestions on how to use it in the classroom and how to use
Stream Cleaner as a segue into discussions of topics such as:
-
The cost of pollution,
-
The personal side of pollution,
-
The socio-economics of pollution,
and
-
How accurate is the Stream
Cleaner activity? If you really want to dig deeply into the
nuts and bolts of assessing pollution, the latter topic would be
an excellent subject for discussion. A click on the Stream
Cleaner “volume” in the Pollution section of the bookshelf leads
into a discussion of how CI designed the activity, including
simplifying decisions to make it more playable. The decisions
made in designing Stream Cleaner are a very simple
version of the decisions made when building a predictive model
like the Chesapeake Bay Program Models (to be discussed later).
The only key SCE Forum topic Stream Cleaner doesn’t
introduce is the societal challenges of getting people to voluntarily
change the way they manage their lands, and the tradeoffs inherent in
the process. The classroom also includes a Stream Cleaner Slide Show
that provides a real-world look at the best management practices that
are used in Stream Cleaner (click on the projector screen mounted
over the window).
Water Quality Science.
Many perspectives on water
quality are needed to understand the problems facing the Bay. You can
look at water quality in the Bay itself, in the large rivers like the
Potomac and Susquehanna as they flow into the Bay, or in the innumerable
smaller streams throughout the Bay watershed. The water quality science
in the SCE Forum presents particular challenges as it is focused on non
point source pollution. Non point pollution is highly episodic in
nature because it is moved into our streams mostly by precipitation. Of
the three pollutants of concern – nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment –
only one is commonly present in the water column in appreciable
amounts. This section provides information on sampling for these
parameters in headwater streams and in the big river outlets to the Bay:
-
Cacapon Institute has been studying
water quality in Potomac Highlands headwater streams since 1985, and
the second native guide essay (Neil Gillies, Cacapon
Institute) provides perspective on the study of non point source
pollutants in small streams, specifically nutrients, based on real
data from CI's programs.
-
Next is a series of links to U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) web sites looking at water quality at the
large river scale. The USGS is taking a lead role in these
studies.
-
The Chesapeake Bay’s problems are
biological. They relate to the indirect impacts of excess
nutrients and sediment on aquatic plants, on dissolved oxygen
levels, and on the effect of low dissolved oxygen on animals. If
you haven’t done it yet, you should now present a Chesapeake Bay
Program PowerPoint presentation that provides an excellent overview
of the science as it relates to the impacts of nutrients and
sediment on the Bay’s biological health. As noted above, you should download this
Restoring and Protecting the Chesapeake Bay Powerpoint
presentation about the Bay (big file - 4 mb) and go through the
presentation with your class. It is very well done, with sufficient notes
to guide the teacher through the presentation.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model
Scientists use mathematical
models to understand large scale processes that can't be observed
directly in their entirety. The Chesapeake Bay Program uses various
mathematical models to simulate processes in the 64,000 square mile
Chesapeake Bay drainage basin, which is much too large and complex to
isolate for experiments in the real world. Their models use the results
of small scale scientific experiments on subjects like the effect of a
specific land use change on water quality, and apply them to the whole
Bay watershed. The use of models is necessary, but can be very
controversial. This section should provide enough information for
students to understand the use, strengths, and pitfalls of the Bay
models (and models in general):
-
Native guide
Michael Schwartz (Environmental Scientist at the Conservation Fund's
Freshwater Institute) has been the West Virginia Tributary Team's
point man on issues related to the Chesapeake Bay's models, and he
shares his thoughts on watersheds and the use of models.
-
The second link in this section
provides a quick look at graphs of nutrient and sediment load
estimates from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model for the whole Bay,
for each state, and by major land use categories. This is critical
information for the students.
-
There are a number of good links that
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the CBP’s models, finishing
with a link to a critical report by the
non partisan Government Accounting
Office that criticized the Bay program for overstating its progress,
minimizing threats posed to the estuary, and for failing to address
its problems. You have to take the good with the bad,
and students need to know that, in the world of developing public
policy, decisions are made with the best available information – not
perfect knowledge.
Tributary Strategies
Cleaning up the Bay is about
a lot more than just science and models. It also involves the interplay
of science and government policy. The federal government's central role
as the Chesapeake Bay Program (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, etc.), state and
local government, and local stakeholders all play essential roles in
creating a workable plan and generating support from state and federal
politicians, support that will be needed to generate the huge amounts of
money to pay for the cleanup. Every state has taken a somewhat
different approach to developing and implementing their strategy, and a
link is provided to help students explore these strategies.
Best Management Practices.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
are methods for preventing or reducing the pollution resulting from some
activity. The term originated from rules and regulation in Section 208
of the Clean Water Act. There are a number of good links to explanatory
material on BMPs. The Chesapeake Bay Program is constantly working to
improve their understanding of the watershed, including their
understanding of how well existing BMPs work. They also seek new BMPs
to help solve the problems. A link to a Bay Program's Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) report (600 kb pdf document) is
technical but very readable, and not in the least shy about identifying
deficiencies in the current program. It also is a fine example of how
the Bay program uses a continuing peer review process to improve their
understanding of all aspects of cleaning up the Bay.
Stakeholders.
Reaching the ambitious
nutrient reduction goals needed to restore the Bay will not be easy.
With more than 16 million people living and working in the Bay
watershed, our individual impact on water quality takes a toll on the
quality of local waters. Each Bay state's Tributary Strategy relies
heavily on voluntary adoption of BMPs by the private sector, including
farmers and homeowners, to achieve its goals. In rural areas this
effort tends to emphasize loadings from the agricultural sector,
although the urban sector will be of increasing importance as many areas
in the watershed are experiencing explosive population growth. Every
watershed has a different mix of land use and therefore a different mix
of pollution problems to address. Ultimate success will require working
with farmers, homeowners, local government, developers (etc) to
encourage voluntary reductions of nutrients and sediment flowing from
yards, cropland, parking lots, pasture, and sources of concentrated
animal manure such as cattle feedlots. All state tributary strategies
seek to reduce pollutant loads by implementing a comprehensive suite of
voluntary BMPs.
1.
The WV Potomac
Tributary Strategy's chapter on Challenges to Implementation provides a
great deal on insight into the thinking of different stakeholder groups
who actually participated in developing WV's strategy. Students should
research how other states handled stakeholder input and the results of
that input.
2.
Native guide Matt
Monroe (Environmental Coordinator for the WV Department of Agriculture)
is a key player in West Virginia's tributary strategy process, and
provides his unique point of view on the agricultural community's
perspective.
3.
The Chesapeake Bay
Foundation provides native guide insight into a regional non profit
environmental organization’s efforts to build consensus between groups
to restore the Bay, which is what your students will be doing during the
final week of the SCE Forum.
Paying for it.
Paying for the Bay cleanup
will be incredibly expensive. Every state’s Tributary Strategy notes
right up front that this effort will cost a lot of money and they won’t
get it done if the resources are not available. A link to the WV
Potomac Tributary Strategy details the costs for West Virginia alone,
and West Virginia is only a small part of the solution. We suggest that
students research the estimated cost for each state. Students might
research USDA Farm Bill programs that can provide resources for
agricultural lands. Try to recruit an expert from a federal or state
agricultural agency to talk to your class about these programs and about
BMPs. There are also innovative approaches being considered to trade
pollution loads between point sources and non point sources. For
example, it is very expensive to install technology to clean up point
sources like sewage treatment plants and relatively inexpensive to clean
up agricultural pollution. A sewage treatment plant, that is
required, under law and by condition of their permit, to reduce
their load might instead be able to pay farmers to voluntarily install
BMPs that result in the same reduction in overall pollution. The BMP
section has a link on the decision to install agricultural buffers to
protect New York City's water supply. By installing buffers and
protecting erodeable land throughout the Catskill/ Delaware watersheds,
they hoped to avoid construction of a water filtration plant costing an
estimated $6 billion.
Consensus.
Guidance will be provided during the
multi-school dialogue phase on forming consensus on this very
challenging problem. We will suggest a number of possible ways to frame
the debate and narrow its scope.
Teacher Lesson/Unit Plans
SCE Forum Specific
Standards
Specific Suggestions: Oh Deer!
Environmental Forum
Overview
White-tail deer are very abundant in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and throughout much of the eastern United
States. Out of control deer populations represent a problem for both
man and nature. Many foresters and conservation professionals believe
that deer are one of the top threats to healthy forest ecosystems in the
Northeast. Negative human-deer interactions include millions of dollars
in farm crop losses, millions more losses in automobile accidents,
spread of Lyme disease, and damage to gardens and landscaping.
Deer are a major resource in the region’s
recreational economy. In addition to direct expenditures on hunting
licenses and gear, both hunting and non-hunting related deer activities
provide associated economic benefits to individuals and businesses.
Deer management decisions are far more than a wildlife management issue
alone; there are also important economic and social considerations. Can
society agree on an effective solution that will restore forest
ecosystems, protect the interests of the diverse human community, and
treat the deer humanely?
In every classroom, the Oh Deer! Forum
should begin with students taking the survey that is found at the top of
the page. This survey will be
repeated at the end of the forum to assess what students learned, and
how attitudes may have changed.
In the Oh Deer! eForum, students learn
about:
·
The problems resulting from
deer over population,
·
The science that is used to
understand the problems and monitor deer population,
·
The methods that are used
to control deer populations,
·
The social and economic
challenges to implementing deer population control,
·
The politics of seeking
solutions acceptable to our diverse community, and
·
The costs of deer
population management.
The eForum has information on these
issues within the website and through links to other websites. We have
commentary in the form of age appropriate essays written for the
students by professionals who work on the problem. These “native
guides” are:
·
Dave Warner, Licensed
Consulting Forester, WV. Dave describes the changes he has personally
observed in West Virginia forests, due to excessive deer population,
over the past 25 years.
·
William Grafton,
Agronomist, West Virginia University. William discusses the limits of
biological, ethical, and economic carrying capacities of the deer
population and why agronomists agree the deer population must be managed
by humans.
We strongly encourage teachers to have
their students search for additional information not found on CI’s
website site that is germane to the specific subjects the teacher wants
to cover.
Subject area reading,
including the Native Guide Essays, introduces basic concepts. Topics
include:
o
A link to an
excellent overview
by the Maryland DNR on the deer/human story in the East. The
article at the link ends with: "Effective deer management aims for a
deer population level that will allow our environment to be healthy and
to strike an acceptable balance between people and deer. It's a complex
challenge that requires balancing biological and social demands."
That is as good a description as any of your student’s challenge in the
Oh Deer! eForum, because deer management has rarely achieved the
balancing act described above - and the deer population is out of
control in many areas.
o
Begins with a link to an
interactive map of deer densities throughout the United States. We
suggest you have students drill down to the local level to get a sense
of what the deer population is like in your area, then back out to see
how you compare to other areas.
-
Two graphs of buck harvest and
estimated deer densities per square mile for four WV counties
over time to show how numbers can fluctuate. A link is provided
to the WVDNR website that includes information on how WV
estimates deer herd size. As an exercise in internet searching
and in analysis, we suggest your students try
using the web to find the number of bucks harvested and the
total area in square miles of your county, and then use WVDNR's
formula to estimate the total deer population per square mile in
your county.
-
What problems are caused by deer
overpopulation? This section is broken down into forest,
agriculture, suburbia, and watershed (yes, watershed).
-
Forest.
What are the forest ecosystem impacts of overabundant deer?
This section has overviews by the
Bureau of
Forestry in Pennsylvania
overview and the personal story from our first native Guide
essay - WV forester David Warner. These are followed by
additional links for a more detailed look at the topic. The
first link is to Pennsylvania Audubon’s masterwork -
“Managing White-tailed Deer in Forest Habitat From an Ecosystem
Perspective” - which is available in a series of PDF
files that include a 13 page Executive Summary. The next
link is to an article by Audubon Magazine’s excellent Ted
Williams, who has often written on the ecosystem impacts of
overabundant deer and the challenges of controlling them. The
section ends with a discussion of research on how
deer foraging
threatens the survival of ginseng in WV. This section ends with
two links to the wolf recovery effort in Yellowstone – these
links are critically important if your classroom interest is in
students understanding ecosystem balance from a real world and
very current example.
-
Agriculture.
This section opens with Native
Guide William Grafton (West Virginia University) talking about
problems deer cause farmers in West Virginia. The next links
provide more regional information on this issue.
-
Suburbia.
A single link is provided to an overview of suburban problems
and a number of possible solutions.
-
Watershed. Cacapon Institute works on watershed issues that are impacted by
deer overpopulation. Links are provided to Riparian Forest
Demonstration Project that CI has monitored, with results
showing the deer impacts. CI is currently conducting research
on excluding deer from riparian plantings and has just received
a major grant to continue this research and expand into upland
areas. A link is provided to the main research results page.
-
Deer Control.
This section links to a variety of articles on deer control methods.
It begins with the story of natural deer (and other large ungulate)
control in natural ecosystems through the lens of the
wolf restoration in
Yellowstone National Park. Following this are links to control
suggestions from various sources in different settings.
Stakeholders.
After students learn about
the ecosystem (forest and watershed health) and economic (beneficial for
hunting economy and negative for others) impacts of over abundant deer,
they are ready to begin the stakeholder phase. During the
stakeholder Point of View (POV) phase, the job of student groups is to
capture the position of their stakeholder group as accurately and
persuasively as possible. It is not their job at this point to be
accommodating (unless they choose to). In fact, the more provocative
POVs usually get the most attention during the Thoughtful Question
phase. Although, if stakeholder groups choose to provoke, they had best
be prepared to back up their position with verifiable facts or they will
likely go down in flames.
J
Pretty much everyone is impacted by the deer population in one way
or another. Farmers, insurance companies, and automobile owners suffer
millions of dollars in damage that would not be likely if the deer
population was smaller. Suburban homeowners are aggravated by deer
damaging their landscaping and home gardens. Hunters, and the economy
they support, rely on a plentiful and healthy deer population. And the
forest ecosystem in the Northeast as a “stakeholder” is simply being
devastated by the deer. Animal rights stakeholders focus on humane
treatment type concerns.
Each of these groups has unique interests that are not easily
balanced. The forest ecosystem would certainly be best served by
restoration of major predators (like the wolves in Yellowstone).
Farmers want the deer herd reduced tremendously, but would fight to the
death to prevent restoration of predators that might also prey on
livestock. Hunters are acclimated to the large deer herds and denuded
forest understories that make hunting pretty easy, and often fight to
prevent policies that would reduce the herd to levels that would protect
the ecosystem. Many wildlife agencies get their income from the sale of
hunting and fishing licenses, and therefore have a conflict of interest
in being responsive to both natural resource needs and their bottom
line.
Consensus.
Can society agree on an effective
solution that will restore forest ecosystems, protect the interests of
the diverse human community, and treat the deer humanely?
That’s what students, in the role of stakeholders in the Oh Deer!
eForum, must try to do. Since deer management can cost money, students
should consider cost of their solutions as part of the consensus
deliberations by addressing these two questions: how much is society
willing to spend, and where will the money come from? Suggestions for
consensus building methods are provided above.
Have fun!
eForum
CSOs:
in development
Many educational disciplines could find a solid reason to
participate, but those below are a clear match:
Social Studies/Civics - In Civics classes, teachers
help students develop the social studies skills required of
citizens: such as the ability to: "create and explain maps,
diagrams, tables, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets; . . . review
information for accuracy, separating fact from opinion; identify
a problem and recommend solutions; select and defend positions
in writing, discussion, and debate; . . . and respecting
differing opinions in a diverse society." (excerpted from VA
Civics and Economics Standards). In the eForums,
social studies students get a first hand opportunity to put
their abstract civics lessons to work in tackling hot-button
environmental issues that are relevant to their lives. The exercises in developing stakeholder groups
and forming community consensus are fundamental to a democratic
society. One of
the advantages of the web-based forum approach is that students
have a regional experience. While deer migration, and
water pollution are not restrained by political boundaries,
political actions do have an impact on the problem. We
invite students to study the interplay of federal, state, and
local governments and the role citizens play in forming policy.
Science - eForums are rich in science learning for
environmental science, biology, and chemistry. They
highlight the use of objective science in the larger
societal dialogue required to solve environmental problems that
are relevant to their lives and their community. They also offer a very effective
way for teachers to approach the Science in Personal and
Social Perspectives educational standards developed by the
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment
(National Research Council), that are broadly incorporated into
state educational standards. These standards are designed
to give science students a framework to understand and act on
personal and social issues, develop decision-making skills, and
provide a foundation for the decisions they will face as
citizens.
Vocational Agriculture -
More than any other student group, vo-ag students are likely to
be actually living the challenges of both the Oh Deer! and
Stream Cleaner Environmental Forums. Many of the students may
have ready applications of the knowledge gained through the
eForums in their lives and the lives of their families.
The vo-ag curriculum is rich with courses that would benefit by
incorporating the eForums into their curricula. For example,
West Virginia offers Agricultural Environmental Science (WVEIS
Code 0153), which is designed to provide students with core
skill and competencies needed for pursing careers in
environmental science and natural resources management. Among
the many goals, students: Explain concepts in environmental
management; Demonstrate parliamentary procedure skills to
conduct a meeting; display skill involving computer application
in environmental science; Search the Internet to secure
environmental science information; Explain impact of
agricultural practices on groundwater; Identify best management
practices for water quality; Identify best management practices
of soil erosion and sedimentation; and Explain the role forests
have in the environment. (Excerpted from WVEIS Code 0153)
Language Arts -
Students practicing research skills will find the eForum pages a
good starting point:
-
Persuasive
writing classes can do background research, make strong
"point of view" statements, and then test the strength of
their POVs through the Thoughtful Question peer review and
the consensus debate;
-
Journalism
students can cover the conversations and consensus building
exercises of their class and draft press releases for the
local paper and articles for or the school's paper.
The national standards for Language Arts seek to help students:
read a wide range and nonprint texts to acquire new information
and to respond to the needs and demands of society and the
workplace; apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend,
interpret, evaluate, and appreciate text; conduct research,
using a variety of technological and informational resources, on
issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by
posing problems; use spoken, written, and visual language to
communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for
different purposes, including persuasion and information
exchange. (Condensed from Standards for the English Language
Arts. 1996. International Reading Association and the National
Council of Teachers of English.)
West Virginia Content
Standards
This activity is also
intended to help teachers “provide
opportunities for students to use education technology interwoven with
relevant curricular content,” as required by the WV Content Standards
and Objectives (CSO).
Social Studies.
The activity includes discussions on citizen involvement in
decision making, weighing cost and benefits of a proposed action, the
role of government in setting priorities, and complicated decisions
related to balancing individual liberties with the common good.
Standard 1: Citizenship (SS.S.1)
Students will:
·
develop and
employ the civic skills necessary for effective citizenship by using
criteria to make judgments, arrive at and defend positions and evaluate
the validity of the positions or data (Evaluation Skills);
-
demonstrate and employ the
participatory skills of interacting, monitoring and influencing that
are essential for informed, effective and responsible citizenship,
including participation in civic life to shape public policy
(Participatory Skills);
SS.5.1.1 describe how groups and institutions work to meet the
individual needs and promote the common good (e.g., Red Cross, laws).
SS.5.1.2 explain the political process and describe
its importance in decision-making.
SS.5.1.3 explain the consent of the governed as the source
of authority of government
SS.6.1.1 describe ways in which nations interact with one another
and try to resolve problems.
SS.6.1.2 evaluate, take and defend positions on the purposes that
government should serve (e.g., debates, essays).
SS.7.1.2 explain actions citizens take to influence public policy
decisions.
SS.7.1.4 locate, access and organize information about an issue of
public concern from multiple points of view.
SS.8.1.1 evaluate how citizens can participate in
government at the local, state and national levels (e.g., voting,
community service, letter writing).
SS.8.1.2 identify and practice forms of civic discussion
and participation consistent with the ideals of citizens in a democratic
republic.
SS.8.1.5 explain the political process and the opportunities for
citizens to influence government.
SS.8.1.6 locate, access, analyze, organize and apply information
about selected public issues, recognizing and explaining multiple points
of view.
SS.8.1.7 explain and analyze various forms of citizen action that
influence public policy (e.g., how groups can work with governmental
agencies to impact the development of tourism).
SS.8.1.8 analyze the influence of diverse forms of public opinion
on the development of public policy and decision making.
SS.8.1.9 examine the strategies designed to strengthen the common
good, which consider a range of options for citizen action.
SS.8.1.10 identify, analyze, evaluate and interpret sources and
examples of the responsibilities, privileges and rights of citizens.
SS.9.1.1 compare and contrast various citizens’ responses to
controversial government actions.
SS.9.1.3 make informed decisions as to what government should and
should not do.
SS.9.1.4 explain how the interactions of citizens with one another
monitor and influence the government.
SS.9.1.5 evaluate ways conflicts can be resolved in a cooperative,
peaceful manner that respects individual rights and promotes the common
good.
SS.11.1.1 discuss ways citizens can work cooperatively to resolve
personal, local, regional, and world conflicts peacefully.
SS.11.1.2 analyze and evaluate the influence of citizen action on
public policy and law making.
SS.11.1.3 analyze the changing nature of civic responsibility.
SS.11.1.4 develop positions and formulate actions on the problems
of today and predict challenges of the future (e.g., terrorism,
religious conflict, weapons of mass destruction, population growth).
SS.12.1.2 explain that one of the primary purposes of American
government is the protection of personal, political, and economic rights
of citizens, examine the characteristics of these rights and analyze how
they reinforce or conflict with each other necessitating reasonable
limitations.
SS.12.1.3 describe and analyze the personal and civic
responsibilities of U.S. citizens.
SS.12.1.6 explain how public policy is formed and carried out at
the local, state and national levels and what roles citizens can play in
the process.
Standard 2: Civics/Government (SS.S.2)
Students will:
Ø
identify, examine and explain the structure, function and
responsibilities of governments and the allocation of power at the
local, state and national levels (United States Government and
Politics); and
SS.9.2.3 explain the purpose of the United States
government and analyze how its powers are acquired, used and justified.
SS.9.2.11 evaluate the degree to which public policies and citizen
behaviors reflect or foster the stated ideals of a democratic republican
form of government.
SS.12.2.9 explain the importance
of law in the American constitutional system and examine the importance
of the rule of law for the protection of individual rights and the
common good.
Standard 3: Economics (SS.S.3)
Students
will:
●
analyze the role of economic choices in scarcity, supply and demand,
resource allocation, decision-making, voluntary exchange and trade-offs
(Choices);
●
research, critique and evaluate the roles of private and public
institutions in the economy (Institutions);
SS.8.3.7 describe and analyze the effects of national and state
governmental actions on West Virginia’s economy.
SS.11.3.1 evaluate the lifestyle changes brought on by
industrialization, technology and transportation (e.g., debate
industrialization vs. maintaining natural environment and the
implications for tourism).
Standard 4: Geography
(SS.S.4). eForums would be most applicable
to CSOs which concern analysis of include the
interaction of society with the environment (Environment and Society);
SS.5.4.11 describe how
people have changed the environment of the United States.
SS.9.4.14 analyze and
explain the human impact on the environment throughout the American
experience.
SS.11.4.6 analyze and assess
the impact of human decision-making and technology on the environment.
Science Standard 6: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives
Applying science and technological innovations to personal and social
issues such as health, populations, resources and environment helps
students to develop decision-making skills. As students expand
their conceptual horizons, they should recognize that collective
individual actions manifest as societal issues. Students must
recognize that society cannot afford to deal only with symptoms;
personal and societal actions must be focused on elimination of the
causes of problems. Students should recognize that unless imposed
by legislation social change involves negotiation among different
interest groups. Students must be allowed to encounter and examine
social change in a variety of current and historical contexts.
Standard 6: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives (SC.S.6)
Students will:
●
demonstrate the ability to evaluate personal and societal benefits when
examining health, population, resource and environmental issues;
●
demonstrate the ability to evaluate the impact of different points of
view on health, population, resource and environmental practices;
●
predict the long-term societal impact of specific health, population,
resource and environmental practices; and
SC.5.6.3 - critically analyze the effects and impacts of science and
technology on global and local problems (e.g., mining, manufacturing,
recycling, farming, water quality).
SC.6.6.1 use scientific reasoning and the knowledge of science and
technology to make informed personal decisions at the local and global
levels.
SC.6.6.3 - critically analyze the effects and impacts of science and
technology on global and local problems (e.g., mining, manufacturing,
recycling, farming, water quality).
SC.6.6.5 analyze the positive and negative effects of technology
on society and the influence of societal pressures on the direction of
technological advances.
SC.7.6.1 use scientific reasoning and the knowledge of science and
technology to make informed personal decisions at the local and global
levels.
SC.7.6.3 - critically analyze the effects and impacts of science and
technology on global and local problems (e.g., mining, manufacturing,
recycling, farming, water quality).
SC.7.6.5 analyze the positive and negative effects of technology
on society and the influence of societal pressures on the direction of
technological advances.
SC.8.6.1 use scientific reasoning and the knowledge of science and
technology to make informed personal decisions at the local and global
levels.
SC.8.6.2 evaluate and critically analyze mass media reports of
scientific developments and events.
SC.8.6.3 - critically analyze the effects and impacts of science and
technology on global and local problems (e.g., mining, manufacturing,
recycling, farming, water quality).
SC.8.6.5 analyze the positive and negative effects of technology
on society and the influence of societal pressures on the direction of
technological advances.
SC.9.6.1 - research uses and values of natural resources.
SC.9.6.2 - research current environmental issues (e.g., effects of
pollution, solid waste management, local, national, and global issues).
SC.9.6.5 engage in decision making activities and
actions to resolve science-technology-society issues.
SC.10.6.2 - research current environmental issues (e.g., depletion of
fossil fuels, global warming, destruction of rainforest pollution).
SC.10.6.3 - describe the impact of cultural, technological, and economic
influences on the evolving nature of scientific thought and knowledge.
SC.10.6.5 engage in decision making activities and actions to
resolve science-technology-society issues.
AB.6.1
investigate and discuss the impact that humans may have on the quality
of the biosphere such as depletion of the rainforest, pollution of
estuaries, strip mining, depletion of fossil fuels and deterioration of
ozone layer.
AB.6.2
investigate the effects of natural phenomena on the environment (e.g.,
oceanographic, meteorologic).
AB.6.3
research current environmental issues (e.g., depletion of fossil fuels,
global warming, destruction of rainforest pollution).
AB.6.4
describe the impact of cultural, technological, and economic influences
on the evolving nature of scientific thought and knowledge.
AB.6.5
explore occupational opportunities in science and technology including
the academic preparation necessary.
AB.6.6 engage in decision making activities and
actions to resolve science-technology-society issues.
BTC.6.2
- describe the impact of cultural, technological and economic influences
on the evolving nature of scientific thought and knowledge.
BTC.6.4 engage in decision making activities and actions to
resolve science-technology-society issues.
William
Moore, Science
Department Chair, Hampshire High School affirmed that the
following WV
Objectives from Advanced Environmental/ Earth Science were
addressed during the students work in the eForum:
AES.2.2 demonstrate ethical
practices for science (e.g., established research protocol,
accurate record keeping, replication of results and peer
review).
AES.2.3
apply scientific approaches to seek solutions for personal and
societal issues.
AES.2.6 use appropriate technology
solutions (e.g., computer, CBL, probe interfaces, software) to
measure and collect data; interpret data; analyze and/or report
data; interact with simulations; conduct research; and to
present and communicate conclusions.
AES.2.7 demonstrate science
processes within a problem solving setting (e.g., observing,
measuring, calculating, communicating, comparing, ordering,
categorizing, classifying, relating, hypothesizing, predicting,
inferring, considering alternatives, and applying).
AES.2.8design, conduct, evaluate and revise experiments (e.g., identify
questions and concepts that guide investigations; design
investigations; identify independent and dependent variables in
experimental investigations; manipulate variables to extend
experimental activities; use technology and mathematics to
improve investigations and communications; formulate and revise
scientific explanations and models using logic and evidence;
recognize alternative explanations; communicate and defend a
scientific argument).
AES.3.1 analyze systems to
understand the natural and designed world; use systems analysis
to make predictions about behaviors in systems; recognize order
in units of matter, objects or events.
AES.3.2 apply evidence from models
to make predictions about interactions and changes in systems.
AES.3.3 measure changes in systems
using graph and equations relating these to rate, scale,
patterns, trends and cycles.
AES.4.30 explore the relationships
between human consumption of natural resources and the
stewardship responsibility for reclamations including disposal
of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
AES.4.32 - explain common problems related to the conservation, use,
supply and the quality of water.
AES.4.36 research and explain how
the political system influences environmental decisions.
AES.4.37 investigate which federal
and state agencies have responsibility for environmental
monitoring and actions.
AES.4.38 develop decision-making skills with
respect to addressing environmental problems.
AES.5.2 investigate and analyze
the interdependence of science and technology.
AES.5.3 apply scientific skills
and technological tools to design solutions that address
personal and societal needs.
AES.5.4 describe the scientific
concepts underlying technological innovations.
AES.6.1 research and explain how
the political system influences environmental decisions.
AES.6.2 investigate the effects of natural phenomena on the
environment (e.g., oceanographic, meteorologic).
AES.6.3
research current environmental issues
AES.6.4 describe the impact of cultural, technological and
economic influences on the evolving nature of scientific thought and
knowledge.
AES.6.5 explore occupational
opportunities in science and technology including the academic
preparation necessary.
AES.6.6 engage in decision making
activities and actions to resolve science-technology-society
issues.
Cacapon Institute, PO Box 68, High View, WV 26808 304-856-1385
Email us here.
www.cacaponinstitute.org
|