High School Environmental Forum

Tips for Teachers

CI's eForum Highlights  •  Past Forums  •  Current eForum (click on phone)

Tips on POVs & TDs

Point Of View (POV)

Thoughtful Discussion Comments (TD)

As you investigate the Forum web site you'll notice that we used quite a few links to 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.  That is how all viable policy should be developed.  While we encourage students to be passionate about their POVs they must conform to objective reality.

Many students will be drawn to non-scientific, but commonly accepted “urban” legends, such as "pollution isn't a problem because it all gets diluted down stream;" and "nature always has a way of sort itself out."   Encourage students to be sure of their facts before they post their POVs.  Strong POVs will include references to source material that supports their position.  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. 

In the TD process it is not enough for students to be dismissive of others saying things like: "Perhaps next time you should look more into what you are typing, words don't mean anything unless you can back them up."  In writing both the POV and TD just stating something, or challenging someone based on a belief, doesn't cut it.  In the POVs students need to support their position with facts.  And likewise in the TDs phase students need to challenge with facts. 

Some things students must consider:

1. Cost to reach the desired result;  

2. Cost of failing to reach the desired result (financial, social, health, economic, etc.);

3. Ask the question – will this really work?

4. How does their stakeholder group's position impact another's?

5. Would incremental change reach the ultimate goal, or is dramatic change needed to satisfy their POV.

Time Management

Below are suggestions we have gathered from eForum teachers that may help you  manage your classroom during the background reading and Thoughtful Questions phase.  The background content of the eForum can take as little as four hours for a cursory review or, as we have heard from some teachers, it can form the basis for an entire semester of environmental science.  Background reading can take place in a classroom with multiple computers, can be assigned as an out of class activity provided computers are available to students, or can be delivered by the teacher delivered as a lecture projected on a classroom screen.  The Thoughtful Questions require a minimum of 45 minutes twice weekly but, since the dialogue is dynamic and timely, we suggest brief daily attention if possible.

Keep on subject.  Students should be encouraged to do the background reading first, including the native guide essays, and following the essential links designated with ☺.  That will give them the basics.  Encourage students to only follow the initial links off the eForum lesson page then return directly via the back button.  They should not continue to follow links offsite to additional material until they have completed all the core background reading requirements.  Students who will be pursuing independent study should make notes on where they would like to pursue additional reading and return later.  A quick but complete reading of the entire background lesson will ensure all students are up to speed before entering the dialogue phase.  During the dialogue and consensus students can pursue subjects in more depth depending on their interest and the stakeholder roles they have chosen to play.

Team Teach.  As the class is covering the background reading, teams of students can be assigned to cover certain topics in depth and then present their findings to the entire class.  Based on the subject focus of the class (biology, vocational agriculture, earth science, etc.), team teaching can be used to emphasize sections of the background lesson.  Here teams should be encouraged to further pursue the links found in the background lesson, as well as additional resources in the library, to develop lectures/lessons they will share with the class.  The group-teach method is also valuable if the number of computers is limited because it does not require a 1:1 computer/student ratio.  Teams can cover sections of the background lesson and then share what they learned with the entire class.  Team teaching also encourages the role-playing if stakeholder groups are established up front and they, as a team, have an opportunity to become "experts" in their field through extended study and sharing with the class.

Timely Dialogue.  Once the background reading is complete, students have formed Stakeholder Groups, Point of View papers are drafted, and posted, we enter a several week period of Thoughtful Discussions (formerly Thoughtful Questions).  TDs are posted once each evening - so please make clear to students that returning more than once a day to look for TDs directed at their POV is a waste of time.  Check only once daily for new TDs and POVs.  Students can quickly find if any new POVs were posted by utilizing the link found in the "See list of posted POVs here."  This is a chronological list by stakeholder type, updated daily, that will quickly show if a new group has posted a POV.  Students should check daily, when possible, to see if any TDs have been asked of their group.  If computer time is limited, a representative from each group can check for TDs, hand write the TD, and present it to their stakeholder group off-line.  Representatives can take turns on the classroom's computer.  If stakeholders work off-computer as teams to formulate answers the computer time requirement can be kept to a minimum.  In this way, other classroom lessons can continue during the dialogue phase while stakeholders still have an opportunity to check daily for questions or responses directed at them.

Consensus

Final Consensus Plans that balance the needs of all stakeholder groups are negotiated in each classroom and posted to the web.  It is a challenge keeping students on track.  They should remain advocates for own stakeholder group 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.  There are many methods teachers can use to facilitate the consensus process, and we welcome teachers and others to send their suggestion to us at Cacapon Institute.  We suggest:  The Fishbowl;  Post A POV; The Big Election, and Survey-Based.

Forming effective policy through a democratic process is hard stuff, but it is the stuff of their adult life.  Citizens who do not understand the stakeholder and consensus process will be handicapped in debate.  We refer you to this quote from Ted William's "Living with Wolves:"

". . . the Minnesota DNR created a "roundtable" in 1998. It worked about as well as King Arthur's. Thirty-three citizens representing every conceivable interest, notion, and superstition about wolves--from ranchers to trappers to deer hunters to environmentalists to animal-rights zealots--were instructed to hatch a plan for managing the state's wolves, a plan that would placate everyone and at the same time convince the federal government that wolves could be safely delisted. All members of the roundtable had to be in favor of the plan; one "nay" and it would be scuttled. The legislature would then ratify the plan, and the DNR would live by it. 

     The roundtable process was doomed from the start. The representative of HOWL (Help Our Wolves Live) successfully intimidated the other members into not even discussing hunting or trapping by the public. At the 59th minute of the 11th hour, all hands agreed to a plan that would do nothing to slow wolf expansion into farm country but would at least allow people to shoot wolves caught in the act of attacking their pets or livestock. All roundtable members promised to stand by the plan, including the HOWL representative, although she burst into tears and claimed she'd been bullied into signing. At least the animal-rights people kept their word. The cattlemen, on the other hand, quickly reneged, and unsuccessfully pushed their own bill, which would have cut the current wolf population in half. " Link

Fish Bowl Technique

Students are arranged in a circle and selected representatives of stakeholder groups are put forward into a smaller inner circle - the fishbowl.  The inner circle debates the issues, while the outer circle must remain silent!

The teacher, as facilitator, must ensure the wellbeing and openness of all participants.  Those on the outside must not be allowed to react or disrupt the discussion of the inner circle.  Those in the inner circle should have clear rules for discussion including respectful tones, no interrupting others, and limited time for speaking.  Suggested steps for the Fishbowl:

1. Representative student identify their group and their point of view (1-2 minutes for each student); 

2. Representatives reflects if and how others POVs impact their community.  What would be good for them, what would be harmful.  Is there any position put forward that is totally unacceptable to the stakeholders they represent? (5-10 minutes).

3. The Fishbowl reflects on what positions stakeholder share, and where there is conflict.  (5-10 minutes)

4. Fishbowl reviews discussion for misperceptions, overlooked potential, lessons learned.  (5-10 minutes)

5. Fishbowl develops consensus piece:  Begin with the shared POVs then recognize conflicts and seek acceptable solutions.  Are all stakeholders being satisfied or compensated?  Could there be another solution that is less harmful to any group but still reach the goal?  Finally, is the solution practical and acceptable to all.  (If the Fishbowl can not reach decision the representative must return to their respective stakeholder group and seek new direction until a final solution is reached.)

Post a POV!

In this discussion method student stakeholder groups use post-it notes (or similar cards) to focus thinking.  After making their POVs statement on the web and reflecting on the TDs of the Forum students are encourage to think beyond their own stakeholder group.  What are the broader social, economic, and political issues at stake.  Then:

1. Each student stakeholder group writes, on separate post-in notes, their two or three main issues.  After everyone is done, the notes are gathered together on one board.

2. Under the direction of the entire class the "main issues" are grouped into three columns:  those in agreement, those in disagreement (this is sometimes called the parking lot), and those that aren't either.

3. Setting the disagreement, or parking lot, issues aside, confirm as a class that everyone clearly understands the issues of "agreement".  Now look at the "unclear": Are these really important to a particular stakeholder group?  Why?  Are they necessary to reach the desire environmental goal?  Is the stakeholder group willing to remove or modify a position?  As post-its are modified they move to the "agreement" column (or if they can't be resolved they go to the parking lot).

4. Finally focus on the "parking lot".  Is there any issue that will never make it out?  What will happen to the stakeholder group if their issue is rejected?  Will the stakeholders compromise, can the class accept an amendment to the "disagreeable" position?  What would be the impact on the "disagreeable" stakeholder if "everyone" forced their agenda?  Does society have the right, or the means, to over rule a stakeholder group?  What is "society" overbearing reason to force their own consensus even though a stakeholder group would be harmed?  What will happen to society if that stakeholder group withholds their resources or withdraws completely?  Why can't the issue be left on the "parking lot" indefinitely? 

The Big Election

Its a big election year and the environment is important to voters.  Now that the class has investigated the issue, formed stakeholder groups, and held debate its time to come to consensus and make decisions.  Get students to focus on the key issue facing the people of the class.  This exercise can be formatted to take up a minimum of class time with students building their environmental platforms outside of class.  In the Big Election process:

1. Each stakeholder group puts forward a candidate (or groups can ban together to back mutually acceptable candidates). 

2. Candidates, supported by their stakeholders, address the class one at a time to present the solution they have come up with.  Successful candidates will clearly state their supporters stake in the environmental issue, address other stakeholders concerns, and propose the most viable solution with the least burden for everyone.  Students vote and run off elections are held to determine the top two or three candidates.

3. The leading candidates are presented to the class and each makes a brief address clarifying their position, or modifying their position to strengthen their solution.  The class is given an opportunity to question the candidates.

4. After a period of reevaluation and reflection the remaining candidates, working with their constituents, put forward a final consensus position.  The "winning" solution is carried by the majority vote of the class.

After the final election the class should reflect.  Is there any stakeholders who have been disenfranchised by the process?  Why couldn't their issues be addressed?  What is the cost to the greater society if that this group withdraws their financial or material wealth?

Oh Deer! E-Forum

Survey-Based Consensus Development

Developed by Bill Moore - Hampshire High

We are concluding our interactions with other schools as representatives of different deer impact stakeholder groups.   We must find agreement on how to best manage the deer population to the highest satisfaction of all groups.

***Complete the survey as a group and send a representative to the board to record your group’s response.

***When all survey results are in total the scores and make a statement about how and why the deer population will be managed in the next year, and next 5 years.

***Use ALL data from the survey to justify your recommendations .

Write your recommendations in paragraph form with an introduction, body of recommendations and logical conclusions. Handwrite first, then type on computer and save to stick-drive provided. Due end of period.

SURVEY

For each question Respond with one of the following choices:

            Strongly Disagree/ Disagree/ Agree/ Strongly Agree/

1. There are too many deer now.

2. Deer should be killed to reduce the number

3. Taxes should be raised to pay for deer management

4. Stakeholder groups should pay for deer management

5. Predators should be used to control the deer population

6. Hunters should control the deer population.

7. Hunting seasons should be changed.

8. The public should be informed about effects of deer population.

9. Deer diseases are density dependent.

10. Deer disease should be monitored and controlled.

Class Survey RESULTS

1. There are too many deer now.

2. Deer should be killed to reduce the number

3. Taxes should be raised to pay for deer management

4. Stakeholder groups should pay for deer management

5. Predators should be used to control the deer population

6. Hunters should control the deer population.

7. Hunting seasons should be changed.

8. The public should be informed about effects of deer population.

9. Deer diseases are density dependent.

10. Deer disease should be monitored and controlled.

In conclusion...I had each stakeholder group take this survey and then post
their results. All groups results were tabulated and totaled to see what the
majority of the groups felt on the subject of Deer Population management.
i think it worked ok, but every lesson is subject to improvement.