Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
Learning Reflection.................................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5 I. Purpose of the Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 6 A. B. C. Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................................ 6 Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................................... 6 Impact of Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................ 7
II. Background Information ................................................................................................................... 8 A. Rationale ......................................................................................................................................... 8 B. Goals ............................................................................................................................................... 8 C. Existing Instructional Materials ........................................................................................................ 9 D. E. Program Personnel and Development .......................................................................................... 9 Characteristics of the WBLEs ...................................................................................................... 10
III. Description of Evaluation Design ..................................................................................................... 11 A. Evaluation Model .......................................................................................................................... 11 B. Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 11 C. Learner Survey............................................................................................................................... 12 IV. Results ............................................................................................................................................ 14 V. Discussion of the Results ................................................................................................................. 16 A. Congruence Analysis...................................................................................................................... 16 B. Content Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 16 C. Design Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 16 D. Feasibility Analysis......................................................................................................................... 16 E. Overall Decision ............................................................................................................................. 16 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 18 A. Immediate Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 18 B. Long-Range Planning ..................................................................................................................... 18 C. Evaluation Insights ......................................................................................................................... 18 References ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix A: AP Environmental Science Exam Themes ........................................................................... 20 Appendix B: AP Environmental Science Topic Outline ............................................................................ 21 Appendix C: Survey Instructions ............................................................................................................ 24
2|Page
Appendix D: WBLE Design Evaluation Criteria: Operation: Resilient Planet ............................................. 26 Appendix E: WBLE Design Evaluation Criteria: The Habitable Planet ...................................................... 28 Appendix F: WBLE Content Evaluation Criteria: The Habitable Planet .................................................... 30 Appendix G: Learner Survey Results....................................................................................................... 34
3|Page
Learning Reflection
Through my work in this course, I have developed several insights about evaluation: 1. Every evaluation is a unique situation that requires a unique treatment. Evaluators should glean insight from many different sources and not be locked into a particular process or method. 2. Evaluations must be conducted within the context and purpose of the evaluation situation. My final evaluation project was based on a hypothetical situation, which made it difficult to determine the finer details of the context and purpose that would have so much bearing on how I would design the evaluation. 3. The most productive approach to designing an educational evaluation is to start with the classic instructional design principles. I was most appreciative of Carey and Dicks chapters on formative and summative evaluations, because they do such a terrific job of striking a balance between academic concepts and pragmatic considerations. During the course of my final evaluation project, I had to remind myself that I was performing an assessment, not trying to prove the worth of the products I was evaluating. I really wanted both of the WBLEs in my project to be outstanding and suitable for the purpose of the evaluation, because I like to think that well-designed, interactive, Web-based instructional materials have something to add to education beyond traditional instructional materials. But I had to proceed with a systematic evaluation process and let the evaluation results speak for themselves. The Operation: Resilient Planet WBLE is quite appealing, but I could have rejected it as a candidate for evaluation once I had developed my hypothetical evaluation scenario. However, I realized it was simply not wise to try to conduct an evaluation of two full programs/courses (each containing weeks or even months of material) within the time frame of the project. I would have been much better off limiting my evaluation to The Habitable Planet, which has its virtues but lacks the pizzazz of Operation: Resilient Planet. Thats the power of first impressions! I also think that evaluations are best conducted by more than one person. It is easy to get too close to the material and lose sight of the purpose and the next direction. Multiple perspectives would be valuable for any evaluation situation. Im not yet certain what to take from my final project experience of designing and conducting a survey for teenage learners. I required the participants to obtain permission from a parent or guardian to participate in the survey, because I did not know how parents might react to a stranger soliciting their childs participation in this activity. I dont know if the permission requirement had any effect on the low response rate. I am not yet certain how I will use my education in evaluation in my career as an instructional designer. I am now almost two months into my first job as an instructional designer. My company creates Web-based courses for all different types of clients and purposes, but formal evaluations are never discussed. Our work is based on what each client wants and is willing to pay for, and we do our best to combine those parameters with solid instructional design principles. Learning outcomes are discussed only anecdotally. I do think my education in evaluation reinforces the virtue of applying solid instructional design principles to any form of instruction.
4|Page
Executive Summary
Two Web-based learning environments (WBLEs), Operation: Resilient Planet and The Habitable Planet: A Systems Approach to Environmental Science, were evaluated for their potential use as instructional materials in preparation for the Advanced Placement (AP) environmental science course and exam. The evaluation was initiated by the AP advisory committee at Green Planet Virtual School (GPVS). Operation: Resilient Planet is an interactive multimedia learning environment that sends participants (who are members of Team Argonaut) on virtual missions, hosted by real-world science researchers, to study the ecological health of selected ecosystems around the world. The program was designed to align with the National Science Education Standards for grades 5 through 8 with an emphasis on the principle of science as inquiry. The Habitable Planet: A Systems Approach to Environmental Science is a linear 13-unit college-level course with multimedia and interactive elements. The course was designed as a professional development learning tool for science educators and for other undergraduatelevel adult learners. The content of both WBLEs is available for free online with optional print/DVD versions available for purchase; The Habitable Planet also requires a small per-student or per-institution licensing fee. The evaluation methodology consisted of two elements: a criterion-referenced evaluation and a survey of some members of the target learner group. The criterion-referenced part of the evaluation assessed the two WBLEs in two key areas: (1) Web-based design/usability characteristics, and (2) applicability to the AP environmental science exam content. The evaluation survey was intended to assess the motivational level of both WBLEs for the target learners. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess both WBLEs for their use as self-study learning tools by high school students who are preparing for the AP environmental study exam with limited assistance by online instructors; the evaluation did not seek to select one WBLE over the other. The results of this evaluation suggest that Operation: Resilient Planet, although extremely appealing and engaging for its intended audience, is unsuitable for the purpose of this evaluation; however, The Habitable Planet course is potentially suitable and motivating for use as instructional material in the AP environmental science program at GPVS.
5|Page
I.
B. Evaluation Questions
Carey and Dick (1991, p. 281) suggest that the expert judgment phase of a summative evaluation should address the following five decision points: 1. Overall Decision: Do the materials have the potential for meeting this organizations needs? 2. Congruence Analysis: Are the needs and goals of the organization congruent with those in the instruction? 3. Content Analysis: Are the materials complete, accurate, and current? 4. Design Analysis: Are the principles of learning, instruction, and motivation clearly evident in the materials? 5. Feasibility Analysis: Are the materials convenient, durable, cost-effective, and satisfactory for current users?
6|Page
By applying the above five decision points to this evaluation, the following key questions emerged for consideration about each of the two candidate WBLEs: 1. Overall Decision: Does the candidate WBLE have the potential for being suitable as self-study materials for high school students who are preparing for the AP exam with limited guidance from online science teachers? 2. Congruence Analysis: Is the WBLE suitable for the target learners? If not, what modifications would be necessary to make the WBLE suitable for these learners? 3. Content Analysis: To what extent does this WBLE cover the concepts and topics included in the AP environmental science exam? 4. Design Analysis: Does the WBLE motivate students to engage in the material? 5. Feasibility Analysis: Is this WBLE suitable for use by individual students with limited guidance from an instructor?
7|Page
II.
A. Rationale
Background Information
The subject of environmental studies has been taught at GPVS for the schools entire (though brief) two-year existence, but the school administrators recently decided to add an AP environmental science course to the school curriculum. The schools AP advisory committee determined that the existing environmental studies materials would be inadequate for use in the AP course, so the committee initiated a process to evaluate instructional materials for the new AP environmental science course. The AP program is administered by the nonprofit College Board (http://www.collegeboard.com/) to provide academically motivated high school students with challenging college-level courses in more than 30 subjects. Students also have the potential to earn college credit by taking the AP exam associated with each AP course, so AP students and instructors tend to focus their learning and instruction around preparation for the exam. The College Board authorizes a school to use the AP course label after the course instructor participates in an AP course audit; AP instructors are required to develop their own AP course curriculum. The AP exams are administered in May every year and graded by college faculty and AP expert teachers. The AP environmental science course is intended to be the equivalent of a one-semester introductory college course that focuses on environmental science, including a laboratory component, rather than environmental studies. Students are more likely to be successful in the course if they have already completed two years of high school laboratory classes (life science and physical science) and one year of algebra. The AP environmental science exam is a three-hour test of 100 multiple choice questions and four free-response/problem-solving questions. The latter four questions include one dataset question, one document-based question, and two synthesis-and-evaluation questions. The College Board established six themes for the environmental science course; these themes are reprinted in Appendix A. In addition, the College Board established a detailed outline of topics that are covered in the environmental science exam; this outline is reprinted in Appendix B. The AP advisory committee at GPVS chose Operation: Resilient Planet and The Habitable Planet WBLEs for evaluation not only for their potential as college-level instructional materials for the AP environmental science course, but also to fulfill the schools mission of providing students with an enriching, technology-supported learning environment. Neither of these WBLEs was developed for use with the AP environmental science course, so the advisory committee was most interested in determining, during this first phase of the evaluation, the extent to which each WBLE covered the AP environmental science course topics and breadth of information.
B. Goals
In developing the new AP environmental science program at GPVS and selecting suitable instructional materials for the course, the AP advisory committee seeks to meet the College Boards stated goal for the AP environmental science course: The goal of the AP Environmental Science course is to provide students with the scientific principles, concepts, and methodologies required to understand the interrelationships of the natural world, to identify and analyze environmental problems both natural and human-made, to evaluate the relative risks associated with these problems, and to examine alternative solutions for resolving or preventing them. (Reprinted from the College Boards AP environmental science course description, 2010) Additional committee goals are as follows:
8|Page
1. To provide AP environmental science students at GPVS with instructional materials that encompass all of the topics outlined by the College Board for the AP environmental science exam. 2. To provide AP environmental science students with an enriching, interactive, technologysupported learning environment in which to study environmental science. 3. To establish the foundational curriculum for the new AP environmental science program at GPVS.
9|Page
III.
A. Evaluation Model
This evaluation was conducted based on the Decision-Making Model (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2005, p. 89). This model, originally developed by Daniel Stuffelbeam and colleagues as the CIPP Evaluation Model, is used in situations that require a decision about the future use of a program. Carey and Dick (1991, p. 270) describe this model as an accountability type of evaluation that they placed among the foundations of summative evaluation. The model does not prescribe a specific data collection methodology, so any number of data collection tools may be used. In this model, CIPP = context, input, process, and product. Each of these evaluation concepts includes a number of variables. The variables used in this evaluation as applied to the decision-making process are shown in Table 1. The CIPP concepts and variables in Table 1 reflect the information needed to answer the evaluation questions presented in Section 1B of this report. Table 1. Decision-Making (CIPP) Model variables for consideration in this evaluation.*
CIPP Evaluation Concept Context Purpose Identify needs and set goals Prescribe a course of action by which to make changes Variables Learner needs Program goals and resources Criteria to judge outcomes Potential approaches System capabilities (equipment and facilities requirements) Cost Accuracy, currency, and durability of materials Appropriateness of materials for target group Time for completion Instructional activities and procedures (group vs. individual) Instructional strategy of product Measurement of outcomes (learner attitudes) Data analysis Comparison of outcomes to program/product needs
Process
Product
* Criteria were identified based on discussions of this model in Stuffelbeam (2003) and Carey & Dick (1991).
B. Evaluation Criteria
The WBLEs in this evaluation were assessed using a criterion-referenced methodology that considered the WBLEs overall design and usability as Web-based resources, and their applicability to the AP environmental science course and exam. The evaluation criteria were developed primarily from two sources described below. 1. Design Criteria. A rubric developed by Bayaa, Shehade, and Bayaa (2009) was used to evaluate the WBLEs in four main categories: usability, content, educational value, and vividness (a measure of the currency of resources and links). Twenty evaluation criteria were considered within these four main categories. The criteria were used as an overall assessment of each WBLEs presentation and design of the content.
11 | P a g e
Content Criteria. The outline of topics for the AP environmental science exam, presented in the AP course description (College Board, 2010), was used to assess the extent to which the WBLE content applies to the AP exam content. The evaluation criteria were assessed using a four-item Likert scale. Points were assigned to each scale item where Strongly Agree=4, Somewhat Agree=3, Somewhat Disagree=2, and Strongly Disagree=1. The points were totaled and averaged for all the main categories within the usability and content criteria areas. These main categories of criteria are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of evaluation criteria and variables.
Evaluation Criteria Design Usability Content Educational Value Vividness Content Earth Systems and Resources The Living World Population Land and Water Use Summary of Variables Considered
Purpose, Homepage, Navigation, Design, Enjoyment, Readability Authority, Accuracy, Relevance, Sufficiency, Appropriateness Learning Activities, Activity Plan, Resources, Communication, Feedback, Rubric, Help Tools Links, Currency Earth Science Concepts, The Atmosphere, Global Water Resources and Use, Soil and Soil Dynamics Ecosystem Structure, Energy Flow, Ecosystem Diversity, Natural Ecosystem Change, Natural Biogeochemical Cycles Population Biology Concepts, Human Population Dynamics, Population Size, Impacts of Population Growth Agriculture, Feeding a Growing Population, Controlling Pests, Forestry, Rangelands, Other Land Use, Urban Land Development, Transportation Infrastructure, Public and Federal Lands, Land Conservation Options, Sustainable Land-Use Strategies, Mining, Fishing, Global Economics Energy Concepts, Energy Consumption, History, Present Global Energy Use, Future Energy Needs, Fossil Fuel Resources and Use, Nuclear Energy, Hydroelectric Power, Energy Conservation, Renewable Energy Pollution Types (Air, Noise, Water, Solid Waste), Impacts on the Environment and Human Health, Hazards to Human Health, Hazardous Chemicals in the Environment, Economic Impacts Stratospheric Ozone, Global Warming, Loss of Biodiversity (Habitat Loss; Overuse; Pollution; Introduced Species; Endangered and Extinct Species, Maintenance Through Conservation)
2.
To rate both WBLEs on the criteria and variables listed in Table 2, the TEI evaluator visited both sites several times over several weeks from October to December 2010. The initial visits served to generate a first impression assessment of each WBLE based on ease of navigation and visual appeal. The AP content criteria required much more purposeful visits to determine the extent to which the content was covered. Since this evaluation was not a competition between the two sites, the evaluation of each WBLE was done entirely in reference to the criteria, goals, purpose, and evaluation questions outlined in this report; the two sites were not compared with each other.
C. Learner Survey
In addition to the criteria evaluation, TEI gathered survey feedback from members of the target learner group to gauge whether the WBLEs would be motivational to and suitable for the age group. Participation instructions were sent to ten 10th-grade students at an International Baccalaureate (IB) school with a strong AP program, including an environmental science course. Since the survey questions were designed to elicit feedback about the motivational aspects of the two WBLEs for
12 | P a g e
academically motivated high school students but not specifically about the WBLEs applicability to the AP exam content, the target learners included some students who were enrolled in the AP environmental science course and some who were not. Since both WBLEs in this evaluation have an extensive amount of content that would require weeks or months of study, the participants were asked to review only certain parts of the content and provide feedback about in an 18-item online survey. Participants were expected to spend a total of about 40 to 50 minutes reviewing the two WBLEs and completing the survey, but they were instructed to spend as much time reviewing additional content as they wanted. The participants were also asked about their typical use of and attitudes toward Web-based educational materials. The survey instructions given to the target learners are shown in Appendix C.
13 | P a g e
IV.
Results
Although the two WBLEs were evaluated from the same initial approach, the two evaluations took somewhat different directions. Operation: Resilient Planet is a dynamic and appealing site, but initial assessments of the content and delivery cast serious doubts about whether the WBLE could pass the Congruence Analysis question: Are the needs and goals of the organization congruent with those in the instruction? Consequently, Operation: Resilient Planet was rejected from contention before a detailed content assessment was performed. In contrast, the detailed assessment of content revealed some important information about The Habitable Planet. The complete results of the WBLE design criteria evaluation for Operation: Resilient Planet are in Appendix D, and the complete results for The Habitable Planet are in Appendix F. A summary of the WBLE design criteria ratings are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of average WBLE design criteria ratings. Operation: Resilient Planet 3.43 2.4 3.57 4.0 The Habitable Planet 4.0 4.0 2.43 3.5
The low rating for Operation: Resilient Planet in the Content category reflects the fact that the content was prepared for students in grades 5 through 8, and the target learners need to study college-level material. Although the site indicates that the material could be adapted for older learners, the necessary adaptations would be time-consuming. The low rating for The Habitable Planet in the Educational Value category reflects the courses lack of quizzes or other types of assessment. A summary of the content criteria ratings for The Habitable Planet are shown in Table 4. The course attained a low score in category IV, Land and Water Use, because the course tends to take a global view of environmental issues, while the AP environmental science exam includes a large component on land and water use patterns and policy pertinent to the United States. The complete results of the content criteria evaluation for The Habitable Planet are in Appendix G. Table 4. Summary of average content criteria ratings for The Habitable Planet.
Content Category I. Earth Systems and Resources II. The Living World III. Population IV. Land and Water Use V. Energy Resources and Consumption VI. Pollution VII. Global Change Average Rating 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.17 4.0 3.29 4.0
The results of the learner survey were a bit disappointing, largely because only two students completed the survey. Several factors may have contributed to the low response rate: 1. The respondents were required to spend up to an hour to review enough content on the two sites to be able to form opinions and respond to the survey. This might be a big time commitment for a 15-year-old.
14 | P a g e
2. The timing of the survey was poor since it occurred over the Thanksgiving break and at the end of the semester when students were finishing final projects. 3. The students had no incentive (or disincentive) to participate in the survey. 4. The students were required to get the permission of a parent or guardian to participate, which some teenagers can be loath to do. Both of the respondents are currently enrolled in an AP environmental science course in a brick-andmortar school, and both indicated that they already enjoy studying environmental science; therefore, the survey results cannot indicate whether either of the WBLEs would motivate students to study the subject matter. However, a few insights could be gleaned from the responses. Overall, the two respondents were receptive to the idea of using Web-based sources for learning. Both seemed interested in the engaging aspects of Operation: Resilient Planet, but one respondent remarked that the materials did not seem applicable to his/her academic needs and would not help with studying for a test. Somewhat surprisingly, both respondents responded quite positively to The Habitable Planet despite (or perhaps because of) its linear nature. Neither respondent reported any technical problems with the WBLEs and had no difficulties navigating the sites to access the content. Complete results of the survey are shown in Appendix G. The results of this evaluation present a clear picture of Operation: Resilient Planet and a less clear picture of The Habitable Planet. The results will be analyzed in the next section as they apply to the five evaluation questions presented in Section I.
15 | P a g e
V.
A. Congruence Analysis
The Congruence Analysis asks, Is the WBLE suitable for the target learners? As explained in Section IV, the WBLE Operation: Resilient Planet did not pass this first analysis question. Operation: Resilient Planet is a dynamic and appealing site with much content to be admired, but the content is delivered in an eco-adventure format and aligned to the grades 5 through 8 NSES. Therefore, it would not meet the needs of AP-level high school students nor the goals of GPVS new AP environmental science program. Modifications to make the WBLE suitable for the target learners would require too much time to make that approach feasible. However, there is no question that The Habitable Planet is suitable for the learners targeted in this evaluation. The Habitable Planet was designed as an undergraduate-level college course, which aligns exactly with the intent of the AP environmental science program. The two survey respondents indicated that they found the content engaging and interesting.
B. Content Analysis
The Content Analysis asks, To what extent does this WBLE cover the concepts and topics included in the AP environmental science exam? Operation: Resilient Planet covers many of the concepts and topics of the AP exam, but not to the depth and breadth required of study materials. The Habitable Planet covers a great deal of the content in the AP exam to the depth and breadth required with the exception of category IV, Land and Water Use. Instructors would need to enhance the content for this category and a few other subject areas of the AP material.
C. Design Analysis
The Design Analysis asks, Does the WBLE motivate students to engage in the material? The answer to this question appears to be yes for both of the evaluated WBLEs. The survey respondents reacted quite positively to both sites.
D. Feasibility Analysis
The Feasibility Analysis asks, Is this WBLE suitable for use by individual students with limited guidance from an instructor? Since the survey respondents had no difficulties navigating the sites or understanding the content, both WBLE sites appear to be suitable for use by individual students with little guidance from instructors. However, the use of Operation: Resilient Planet would require instructor participation in the programs eco-adventure missions, which would be quite time-consuming. The lack of assessments in The Habitable Planet implies that instructors would need to create assessments for students, which may or may not be feasible for the GPVS instructional staff.
E. Overall Decision
The above analyses lead to the Overall Decision question: Does the candidate WBLE have the potential for being suitable as self-study materials for high school students who are preparing for the AP exam with limited guidance from online science teachers? The answer to this question for Operation: Resilient Planet is clearly no. Students would likely enjoy the experience of participating in the ecoadventure missions in Operation: Resilient Planet, but this participation is not likely to help them study for the AP environmental science exam to any great extent. The answer to this question for The Habitable Planet is yes, it does have the potential for this use. And The Habitable Planets motivational factor may
16 | P a g e
supersede its content shortfalls (in regards to the AP exam content) and lack of assessments compared to a traditional textbook course. This purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether one or both of the candidate WBLEs should be recommended for phase 2, a field trial evaluation to assess the candidate materials effectiveness with target group members. Carey and Dick (1991, p. 271) indicate that the field trial phase of a summative evaluation should consider learning outcomes: learners performance and attitudes before, immediately after, and at prescribed intervals following the instruction. This type of evaluation requires extensive time and resourcesmore time and resources than could be managed by the staff at GPVS. And it is clear that The Habitable Planet course could not stand alone as the primary source of instruction for AP environmental science students who are preparing for the AP exam. Therefore, a phase 2 evaluation of learning performance for The Habitable Planet would not be advisable. However, a small-scale phase 2 evaluation of learner attitudes for The Habitable Planet may be productive.
17 | P a g e
B. Long-Range Planning
The results of this evaluation may impact long-range planning at GPVS in the following ways: The AP advisory committee should consider executing a phase 2 evaluation of learner attitudes to assess whether learners would be more motivated by The Habitable Planet interactive Web-based course than a traditional printed textbook. The AP advisory committee must consider the cost of obtaining a license if they wish to use The Habitable Planet course as an official part of the AP environmental science curriculum. Although all the materials for this program are available online, the publisher of the program expects institutions and individual students to pay a small fee for use of the program. If GPVS were to adopt The Habitable Planet for its AP environmental science program, instructors would need to find supplementary material to cover all the content of the AP exam and devise student assessments.
C. Evaluation Insights
The design and implementation of this evaluation could have been improved by enacting the following changes: The Operation: Resilient Planet WBLE could have been rejected as a candidate for this situation so evaluation resources could be devoted to investigating The Habitable Planet course in more detail. A more complete review of the course could have produced a one-to-one comparison of the WBLE content and the AP content that GPVS instructors might find valuable. The learner survey could have been sent to members of the target learner group earlier in the year to avoid conflicts with the holiday break and end-of-semester projects. Follow-up interviews of the learners who reviewed the two WBLEs and participated in the survey could have added some insight into the elements they found engaging, interesting, and potentially useful for their studies.
18 | P a g e
References
Bayaa, N., Shehade, H.M., & Bayaa, A.R. (2009). A rubric for evaluating web-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 761763. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2008.00864.x Boulmetis, J. & Dutwin, P. (2005). The ABCs of evaluation (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, California: JosseyBass. Carey, L.M., & Dick, W. (1991). Summative evaluation. In L.J. Briggs, K.L. Gustafson, & M.H. Tillman (Eds.), Instructional design: Principles and applications (2nd Ed.), 269311. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. The College Board. (2010). AP environmental science course description. Effective Fall 2010. 27 pp. (PDF). Available at http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-environmentalscience-course-description.pdf Stuffelbeam, D.L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D.L. Stuffelbeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, 3162. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19 | P a g e
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reprinted from: The College Board. (2010). AP environmental science course description. Effective Fall 2010. 27 pp. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-environmental-science-coursedescription.pdf
20 | P a g e
(Types of pesticides; costs and benefits of pesticide use; integrated pest management; relevant laws) B. Forestry (Tree plantations; old growth forests; forest fires; forest management; national forests) C. Rangelands (Overgrazing; deforestation; desertification; rangeland management; federal rangelands) D. Other Land Use 1. Urban land development (Planned development; suburban sprawl; urbanization) 2. Transportation infrastructure (Federal highway system; canals and channels; roadless areas; ecosystem impacts) 3. Public and federal lands (Management; wilderness areas; national parks; wildlife refuges; forests; wetlands) 4. Land conservation options (Preservation; remediation; mitigation; restoration) 5. Sustainable land-use strategies E. Mining (Mineral formation; extraction; global reserves; relevant laws and treaties) F. Fishing (Fishing techniques; overfishing; aquaculture; relevant laws and treaties) G. Global Economics (Globalization; World Bank; Tragedy of the Commons; relevant laws and treaties) V. Energy Resources and Consumption (1015%) A. Energy Concepts (Energy forms; power; units; conversions; Laws of Thermodynamics) B. Energy Consumption 1. History (Industrial Revolution; exponential growth; energy crisis) 2. Present global energy use 3. Future energy needs C. Fossil Fuel Resources and Use (Formation of coal, oil, and natural gas; extraction/purification methods; world reserves and global demand; synfuels; environmental advantages/disadvantages of sources) D. Nuclear Energy (Nuclear fission process; nuclear fuel; electricity production; nuclear reactor types; environmental advantages/disadvantages; safety issues; radiation and human health; radioactive wastes; nuclear fusion) E. Hydroelectric Power (Dams; flood control; salmon; silting; other impacts) F. Energy Conservation (Energy efficiency; CAFE standards; hybrid electric vehicles; mass transit) G. Renewable Energy (Solar energy; solar electricity; hydrogen fuel cells; biomass; wind energy; small-scale hydroelectric; ocean waves and tidal energy; geothermal; environmental advantages/disadvantages) VI. Pollution (2530%) A. Pollution Types 1. Air pollution (Sourcesprimary and secondary; major air pollutants; measurement units; smog; acid deposition causes and effects; heat islands and temperature inversions; indoor air pollution; remediation and reduction strategies; Clean Air Act and other relevant laws) 2. Noise pollution (Sources; effects; control measures)
22 | P a g e
3. Water pollution (Types; sources, causes, and effects; cultural eutrophication; groundwater pollution; maintaining water quality; water purification; sewage treatment/septic systems; Clean Water Act and other relevant laws) 4. Solid waste (Types; disposal; reduction) B. Impacts on the Environment and Human Health 1. Hazards to human health (Environmental risk analysis; acute and chronic effects; dose-response relationships; air pollutants; smoking and other risks) 2. Hazardous chemicals in the environment (Types of hazardous waste; treatment/disposal of hazardous waste; cleanup of contaminated sites; biomagnification; relevant laws) C. Economic Impacts (Cost-benefit analysis; externalities; marginal costs; sustainability) VII. Global Change (1015%) A. Stratospheric Ozone (Formation of stratospheric ozone; ultraviolet radiation; causes of ozone depletion; effects of ozone depletion; strategies for reducing ozone depletion; relevant laws and treaties) B. Global Warming (Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect; impacts and consequences of global warming; reducing climate change; relevant laws and treaties) C. Loss of Biodiversity 1. Habitat loss; overuse; pollution; introduced species; endangered and extinct species 2. Maintenance through conservation Reprinted from: The College Board. (2010). AP environmental science course description. Effective Fall 2010. 27 pp. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-environmental-science-coursedescription.pdf
23 | P a g e
Read the introductory paragraph for the unit. In the menu on the left, click on Video. Watch the video until about the 7:55 mark. Spend about another 10 minutes clicking through the other resources in this unit, including Interactive Labs, Visuals, Scientists, Glossary, and Online Textbook. Please look at enough of the materials to get a general idea of the content in this unit. Feel free to review any other materials in The Habitable Planet course or on the Annenberg Media site.
4. When you have visited both Websites, take the online survey located here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BPMDGKT. The survey contains 18 multiple-choice and free response questions. It should take no more than 5 minutes. Please complete the survey by November 30. If you have any questions, contact me using the information below. Thank you for participating in this survey!
25 | P a g e
Usability Purpose
Navigation
Design
Enjoyment Readability
The purpose and intended audience of the WBLE are clear and presented in an easily accessible location. The expected educational benefit of the WBLE is stated in an easily accessible location. The homepage of the WBLE has a complete, accurate, and useful table of contents. The WBLE navigation shows users where they are, where they have been, and where they can go next. The visual appearance of the WBLE is simple, tidy, and does not distract from the educational purpose. The WBLE content is enjoyable and does not cause slow viewing rates. The WBLE content is easy to read, listen to, and watch.
X X 12 12 0 0 3.43
Usability Average Content Authority The WBLE content was derived from authentic and trustworthy sources. Accuracy The WBLE content appears to be accurate, factual, and professional. Relevance The WBLE content is relevant to the subject matter and does not include marginal data. Sufficiency The amount of information in the WBLE is sufficient without being excessive. Appropriatenes The WBLE content is appropriate for s the intended learners/users and is presented with an appropriate method. Content Average Educational Value Learning The learning activities in the WBLE Activities expose learners to new information and encourage them to construct new
26 | P a g e
X X X
2 2.4
knowledge. Each learning activity in the WBLE includes an activity plan. Resources The WBLE learning activities are well-prepared, varied, and provide additional resources. Communication The WBLE allows users to communicate with the designer and peers via email, chat, and/or forums. Feedback The WBLE provides human or mechanical feedback about the learner's performance and the outcome of activities. Rubric Each learning activity in the WBLE includes a rubric to evaluate the learner's performance. Help Tools The WBLE provides useful and accessible help tools. Activity Plan Educational Value Average Vividness Links The links provided in the WBLE are active and enriching. Currency The content of the WBLE is current and appears to be updated regularly. Vividness Average
X X
X 20 3 2 0 3.57
X X 8 0 0 0 4
27 | P a g e
Category
Question
Usability Purpose
Homepage
Navigation
Design
Enjoyment Readability
The purpose and intended audience of the WBLE are clear and presented in an easily accessible location. The homepage of the WBLE has a complete, accurate, and useful table of contents. The WBLE navigation shows users where they are, where they have been, and where they can go next. The visual appearance of the WBLE is simple, tidy, and does not distract from the educational purpose. The WBLE content is enjoyable and does not cause slow viewing rates. The WBLE content is easy to read, listen to, and watch.
X X 4 0 0 0 4.0
Usability Average Content Authority The WBLE content was derived from authentic and trustworthy sources. Accuracy The WBLE content appears to be accurate, factual, and professional. Relevance The WBLE content is relevant to the subject matter and does not include marginal data. Sufficiency The amount of information in the WBLE is sufficient without being excessive. Appropriaten The WBLE content is appropriate for ess the intended learners/users and is presented with an appropriate method. Content Average Educational Value Learning The learning activities in the WBLE Activities expose learners to new information and encourage them to construct new knowledge. Activity Plan Each learning activity in the WBLE
28 | P a g e
X X X
0 4.0
Resources
Communicati on
Feedback
Rubric
Help Tools
includes an activity plan. The WBLE learning activities are well-prepared, varied, and provide additional resources. The WBLE allows users to communicate with the designer and peers via email, chat, forums, and/or incorporation into a Learning Management System (LMS). The WBLE provides human or mechanical feedback about the learner's performance and the outcome of activities. Each learning activity in the WBLE includes a rubric to evaluate the learner's performance. The WBLE provides useful and accessible help tools.
X 12 3 2 0 2.43
Educational Value Average Vividness Links The links provided in the WBLE are active and enriching. Currency The content of the WBLE is current and appears to be updated regularly. Vividness Average
X X 4 3 0 0 3.5
29 | P a g e
12
0 4.0
20
0 4.0
1. Human population dynamics (subtopics: historical population sizes; distribution; fertility rates; growth rates and doubling times; demographic transition; agestructure diagrams) 2. Population size (subtopics: strategies for sustainability; case studies; national policies) 3. Impacts of population growth (subtopics: hunger; disease; economic effects; resource use; habitat destruction) III. Population Average IV. Land and Water Use A. Agriculture 1. Feeding a growing population (subtopics: human nutritional requirements; types of agriculture; Green Revolution; genetic engineering and crop production; deforestation; irrigation; sustainable agriculture) 2. Controlling pests (subtopics: types of pesticides; costs and benefits of pesticide use; integrated pest management; relevant laws) B. Forestry (subtopics: tree plantations; old growth forests; forest fires; forest management; national forests) C. Rangelands (subtopics: overgrazing; deforestation; desertification; rangeland management; federal rangelands) D. Other Land Use 1. Urban land development (subtopics: planned development; suburban sprawl; urbanization) 2. Transportation infrastructure (subtopics: Federal highway system; canals and channels; roadless areas; ecosystem impacts) 3. Public and federal lands (subtopics: management; wilderness areas; national parks; wildlife refuges; forests; wetlands) 4. Land conservation options (subtopics: preservation; remediation; mitigation; restoration) 5. Sustainable land-use strategies E. Mining (subtopics: mineral formation; extraction; global reserves; relevant laws and treaties) F. Fishing (subtopics: fishing techniques; overfishing; aquaculture; relevant laws and treaties) G. Global Economics (subtopics: globalization; World Bank; Tragedy of the Commons; relevant laws and treaties)
16
0 4.0
X X
8 31 | P a g e
Topic Strongly Agree (=4) IV. Land and Water Use Average V. Energy Resources and Consumption A. Energy Concepts (subtopics: energy forms; power; units; conversions; Laws of Thermodynamics) B. Energy Consumption 1. History (subtopics: Industrial Revolution; exponential growth; energy crisis) 2. Present global energy use 3. Future energy needs C. Fossil Fuel Resources and Use (subtopics: formation of coal, oil, and natural gas; extraction/purification methods; world reserves and global demand; synfuels; environmental advantages/disadvantages of sources) D.Nuclear Energy (subtopics: nuclear fission process; nuclear fuel; electricity production; nuclear reactor types; environmental advantages/disadvantages; safety issues; radiation and human health; radioactive wastes; nuclear fusion) E. Hydroelectric Power (subtopics: dams; flood control; salmon; silting; other impacts) F. Energy Conservation (Energy efficiency; CAFE standards; hybrid electric vehicles; mass transit) G. Renewable Energy (subtopics: solar energy; solar electricity; hydrogen fuel cells; biomass; wind energy; smallscale hydroelectric; ocean waves and tidal energy; geothermal; environmental advantages/disadvantages) V. Energy Resources and Consumption Average VI. Pollution A. Pollution Types 1. Air pollution (subtopics: sourcesprimary and secondary; major air pollutants; measurement units; smog; acid depositioncauses and effects; heat islands and temperature inversions; indoor air pollution; remediation and reduction strategies; Clean Air Act and other relevant laws) 2. Noise pollution (subtopics: sources; effects; control measures) 3. Water pollution (subtopics: types; sources, causes, and effects; cultural eutrophication; groundwater pollution; maintaining water quality; water purification; sewage treatment/septic systems; Clean Water Act and other relevant laws) 4. Solid waste (subtopics: types; disposal; reduction) B. Impacts on the Environment and Human Health
X X
32
0 4.0
X X
32 | P a g e
1. Hazards to human health (subtopics: environmental risk analysis; acute and chronic effects; dose-response relationships; air pollutants; smoking and other risks) 2. Hazardous chemicals in the environment (subtopics: types of hazardous waste; treatment/disposal of hazardous waste; cleanup of contaminated sites; biomagnification; relevant laws) C. Economic Impacts (subtopics: cost-benefit analysis; externalities; marginal costs; sustainability) VI. Pollution Average VII. Global Change A. Stratospheric Ozone (subtopics: formation of stratospheric ozone; ultraviolet radiation; causes of ozone depletion; effects of ozone depletion; strategies for reducing ozone depletion; relevant laws and treaties) B. Global Warming (subtopics: greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect; impacts and consequences of global warming; reducing climate change; relevant laws and treaties) C. Loss of Biodiversity 1. Habitat loss; overuse; pollution; introduced species; endangered and extinct species 2. Maintenance through conservation VII. Global Change Average
20
1 3.29
X X 16
0 4.0
33 | P a g e
Q7. I often use Web-based educational materials outside of my classes to study or learn about new subjects. Strongly agree Somewhat agree 1 Somewhat disagree 1 Strongly disagree
34 | P a g e
Q8. I would consider using a Web-based course to study for an exam if one was available. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Q9. I enjoy learning about environmental science. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Q10. The materials I viewed on the Resilient Planet site were interesting and engaging. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
1 1
Q11. I would be more interested in studying environmental science if I could use the Resilient Planet course. Strongly agree 1 Somewhat agree 1 Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Q12. What specific aspects of Resilient Planet did you like and dislike?
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
I liked how engaging it seemed. I believe that I would enjoy it if I were to use the website. I did not see how the information from the website helped with what I am learning in class. I do not believe that it would help me study for a test on that material. I liked the videos and the interactice games and simulations.
Q13. The materials I viewed on the Habitable Planet course were interesting and engaging. Strongly agree 2 Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Q14. I would be more interested in studying environmental science if I could use the Habitable Planet 1. Strongly agree 1 Somewhat agree 1 Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
35 | P a g e
Q15. What specific aspects of the Habitable Planet site did you like and dislike?
Respondent 1
I liked the video that I saw. I thought that the research on the trees was interesting. I believe that the site is well organized and would be easy to navigate when preparing for a test. The way they have the information seems relevant. It was not too exciting, but I would use it for studying. i liked the wide range of materials availiable, such as videos, and interective labs, and others.
Respondent 2
Q16. Did you view any materials on the Resilient Planet site or the Habitable Planet site other than those specified for this survey? Explain why or why not.
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
I looked further into the Habitable Planet site, but not the Resilient Planet. The Resilient Planet did not fit the curriculum I was looking for as study resource. For my purposes, the Habitable Planet was a better site for studying and thus I looked into it more. I looked over the visual aids and a few other things to see what would help me the most. Yes, because science as a whole intrests me, and the videos and overviews sparked my intrest.
Q17. Did you have any technical problems when you visited the Resilient Planet site or the Habitable Planet site? Please explain. Yes No 2 Q18. Did you have difficulties understanding any instructions when you visited the Resilient Planet site or the Habitable Planet site? Please explain.
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
I did not have any problems with understanding instructions, but I did have to go back to the instructions and veer away from the site because I did not remember what I was suppposed to do next. I found this rather annoying, but it could easily have been fixed by opening the instructions in a different window. No
36 | P a g e