Lisa+McDevitt+Field+Journal

January 28, 2014 In Environmental Philosophy today, we spend most of the class discussing the ways in which different worldviews affect one's perceptions of nature. This prompted me to think about how education plays into the shaping of one's worldview. We discussed the mechanical, atomistic view of nature that prevails in Western culture, as opposed to the organic, inter-connected view of earlier civilizations. The reading for the course, Freya Mathews' //The Ideological Implications of Atomism//, suggests that perhaps a more monistic worldview would cause humans to feel more connected with nature, thereby creating a deeper sense of environmental responsibility. It occurred to me that Western education promotes the mechanical view of nature - that it consists of individual parts, separated from humans - and I found myself thinking back to the systems-based curriculum of the third graders. The idea of multiple, individual systems, consisting of separate parts, seems to contribute to this mindset. Is there a way of teaching everything (humans, ecosystems, industry, etc.) as one big system? To what extent does this contrast with the existing system, which divides education into individual subjects, and each subject is taught independently of the others?

February 1, 2014 I confess that I did not actually sit and watch the State of Union address (let’s face it – it’s //long).// However, I could not resist skimming the transcripts, looking for anything energy or education related. What really stood out, for me, at least, was the separation between energy/environment and education. Pres. Obama seemed to address them as totally unrelated issues. It seems to me that these two goals are undeniably intertwined; one may even go so far as to say that it is impossible to achieve one without the other. He talks about providing every American with access to the same education, but I find myself wondering what good this education will do when it perpetuates the unsustainable ideals that seem to dominate (i.e. a focus on STEM as a solution to the country’s energy problems). Some other quotes/ideas that jump out at me: //“more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years…” As well as his support of energy from natural gas.// Again, we seem to be perpetuating the system of fossil fuel consumption. What we need to be doing is teaching Americans that fossil fuels are not the answer. He did not even address the negative impacts to the communities where drilling takes place. //Michelle Obama’s involvement in schools to reduce childhood obesity// I think this is great, don’t get me wrong. However, why can’t a similar approach be taken to teaching students about other issues? I wonder what kind of impact it would have if the first lady threw her support behind an environmental education program….

February 5 I’ve been seeing articles about the water use associated with fracking (like this one: []). This got me thinking about how I learned about nonrenewable resources when I was in middle and high school. Water was never a part of the discussion. I wonder if this is the case in most school systems? And if so, how does this affect the students’ views on water use? This got me thinking about how fresh water as a resource could be incorporated into existing curricula. I wonder if fracking will bring the issue of water into the study of nonrenewable resources, by sort of tying it in with the study of oil and natural gas. I found this curriculum module: http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/schools/Lesson01.pdf This activity seems consistent with the way water was taught in my school. It is classified here as a renewable resource - the water cycle provides us with a constant supply. However, it might be interesting to rework this activity, with fresh water in the nonrenewable category. I would alter the exercise slightly by including a glass of fresh water in the nonrenewable group. I might keep the discussion of the water cycle, and ask the students to think about why, despite this cycle, we are running out of fresh water.

February 6 After reading this article, [], I find myself reflecting on my own science education. Having attended a public school, there was very little talk of creationism, other than the compulsory “//some// people don’t believe what we’re about to teach you.” However, my best friends attended a private Catholic school, and I know that they had whole classes devoted to religion and religious theories. They also learned evolution in biology class. As far as I know, the two classes, religion and science, were kept completely separate. The result, as far as I could tell, was generally that students accepted evolution as science and creationism as religion. I think it would be interesting to observe a biology course taught in a public school where the teaching of evolution is forbidden. I’m not sure either extreme is correct, in this case, and think that maybe Katie’s and Emily’s school had the right idea. At least that way, students learn to respect both ideas for what they truly are.

February 11 [] This article paints a hopeful picture of a rapid (relative to what other “experts” have predicted) shift away from fossil fuels. However, the author neglects to discuss education’s role in this transition, especially in this country. It may be worth asking whether China’s education system has played a role in its sustainability effort. Are they teaching students to think about long term environmental sustainability? What kind of curriculum goes into building an infrastructure that promotes the development of renewable alternatives? Furthermore, why is China making more rapid progress than the U.S.? Out of necessity, sure. But there has to be more than that; necessity sets the foundation for action, but I’m interested to know what actions they’ve taken to create a more sustainable future.

February 13 As I was reading this article, [], I was thinking about all the unexpected ways that pollution affects our lives. When I think of pollution, surfing is not the first thing that comes to mind. It might be interesting to take our “Step up to Solutions” model and ask students to think about unusual or non-intuitive causes and effects of environmental problems. I think this activity would have to be geared more towards older kids, as it would probably involve a little bit more research and critical thinking. My hope would be that, by doing an activity like this, we could expose students to new ways of thinking about sustainability issues. I was especially struck by the fact that professional surfers were speaking out about pollution via Twitter and other social media sites. It might be interesting to ask students to look for information from non-traditional sources like this; does the information seem more relevant, or make it seem more real (to kids, at least) when it comes from a non-academic source?

February 16 I'll confess that my productivity this weekend has been hampered by the Winter Olympics - I just can't resist getting sucked in to the competition. However, I've also been following the stories of less-than-stellar accommodations for the athletes and journalists in the Olympic Village. The pressure on the host country to develop the necessary infrastructure for the games must be huge. This led me to think about the environmental impacts of the games, and I found this article: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/12/3264881/sochi-dirty-games/.  //"...while 13 percent of people pay attention to science, more than two-thirds of people pay attention to the Olympics. Not only that, but nearly every industry has a stake in the games — plastics, automotive, food, textiles, and energy corporations are all vendors or sponsors.//" It seems that the games could provide a great teaching opportunity, and allow educators to tie sustainability education into current events. According to the article, Sochi seems to fall short in terms of minimizing environmental harms (despite grand promises made in their bid to be name host), and asking students to think about the sustainability problems associated with the games could provide a relevant and easy-to-visualize example of a complex sustainability issue, and how host countries can combat the problems associated with the event. Another interesting point raised by the article is the impact of climate change on the winter Olympic games. //"A recent [|report]  found that only six of the last 19 Winter Olympics locations will be cold enough by the end of the century to stage the Games again. The report also estimated that by 2050, Sochi would not be able to reliably host the Games. In 2014, the accumulation of snow has been of concern, with 710,000 cubic meters of snow collected during previous winters being banked on the mountains outside of Sochi, ready to be deposited. A similar scene unfolded in Vancouver in 2010 when unseasonably mild weather forced officials to dump snow on certain sites — the organizers later admitted to underestimating the impacts of climate change. In Sochi, more than 100 Winter Olympians have signed a [|petition]  urging world leaders to fight climate change." // This presents educators with an opportunity to show students the very real, sometimes non-intuitive, impacts that climate change will have on society. It shows the complexity and gravity of the issue, and by linking current events to the problem, students may be more apt to recognize the severity of the situation.

February 17: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/198530-climate-change-gets-its-15-minutes-on-sunday-talk-shows I actually watched the Meet the Press debate discussed in this article (it happened to be on in between Olympic coverage). I found myself wondering, A) how much plastic surgery has Bill Nye had? and B) How is this really a fair debate? You pit someone with somewhat of a scientific background (I say, "somewhat", because despite his reputation as a science educator, Nye possesses a bachelor's degree in engineering), versus a politician with no science background whatsoever. You then frame the debate as one about policy, but ask questions that focus on the science. Climate change is a complex enough issue; why make it even more confusing with such a poorly-constructed debate? Nothing that Nye said held any weight in the eyes of Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn. She flat out denied most of his points, despite a lack of scientific evidence to support her stance. Debates like this should inform the public, not confuse them even more. From the article, it seems that this is the way most climate change debates go. One side has science, and the other has denial, but we have to give each side a fair chance at defending their stance. Much like in the case of evolution vs. creationism, it becomes difficult for teachers to effectively teach either viewpoint. The science is there to support climate change, but teachers often find themselves forced to teach both sides, so as not to appear biased and offend parents/administrators/etc. I think the difference between the evolution debate and this one however, is that ignorance of climate change poses far more risk than ignorance of evolutionary science.