eForum Lesson Plan

Lesson Plan for Environmental Forum Module (January 2007)

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 ewell as specific instructions for each eForum topic: Stream Cleaner Environmentral Forum and Oh Deer! eForum (coming soon) and links to content standards (another one in progress).

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 asking Thoughtful Questions (TQ) 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.” 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. Strong POVs will include references to source material that supports their position. They should consider these questions:
1. Will the solutions “cost” them in any demonstrable way? What do they have to give up?
2. Will the solutions benefit them directly?
3. What could be done that would make their group more willing to participate in seeking a solution?
4. How could the solutions be structured so their group would prosper as a result?
5. What would happen if they were so harmed by the process that they disappeared?
Thoughtful Questions phase. During this phase students ask questions of each other 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 TQ 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 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 one of the Powerpoint overview presentations about the Bay (they are big files, 5 mb or more) from the CBP’s website at http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/wqccommtech.htm and go through the presentation with your class. We suggest using the Educator’s version, but all of these are 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, they are available for download at the CBP’s website at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/wqccommtech.htm. We suggest using the Educator’s version, but all of these are 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.

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

● demonstrate an understanding of public policy decisions as related to health, population, resource and environmental issues.

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.5.5     use appropriate technology solutions to measure and gather data; interpret data; analyze data; and to present and communicate conclusions.

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