A Curriculum to Enhance Environmental Literacy

INDIRA NAIRDepartment of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon University

SHARON JONESDepartment of Civil EngineeringRose-Hulman Institute of Technology

JENNIFER WHITEH. John Heinz, III, School of Public Policy and ManagementCarnegie Mellon University

ABSTRACT

Environmental literacy is an important part of undergraduate edu-cation. Such literacy is optimally gained with an approach thatweaves together the necessary disciplinary knowledge within aproblem-based context. This paper describes the result of effortsover a decade developing and teaching an environmental literacycourse at the undergraduate level. The objective of the course is toenable students to make informed decisions in the context of envi-ronmental issues. In this paper, we describe the theoretical under-pinnings of the course, provide a course description, and discuss arecent assessment of the effectiveness of the course in promotingenvironmental literacy. The material is currently being organizedas a web-based text.

I. INTRODUCTION: TEACHING ABOUTTHE ENVIRONMENT

Environmental issues affect, and are affected by, all of our activi-ties to varying degrees. The need to have a working knowledge ofenvironmental issues is not confined to environmentalists, environ-mental scientists, and/or environmental engineers. In fact, most en-vironmental professionals are primarily involved in trying “to fix”environmental problems. However, the general populace—citizens,corporations, institutions, and governments—are the primaryshapers of the environment. Environmental problems contain in-terconnections of concepts that individually form the topic of sepa-rate formal disciplines such as ecology, thermodynamics, law,ethics, and so on. A coherent environmental literacy course needs toaddress these technical and non-technical concepts as well as theirinteractions. Such a course is therefore essentially interdisciplinaryand a good basis for teaching students the integration of differentdisciplinary knowledge to address real and vital problems.

The possibility of student engagement and the complexity ofthe topics make the environment one of the most exciting and chal-

lenging arenas for teaching and learning. College students bring tosuch a course varying degrees of knowledge and comprehensionabout the environment. They bring passion, emotions, and precon-ceived opinions. A central responsibility of the course is to recog-nize the knowledge they bring, and to equip them with a frameworkfor competent and informed decision making about the environ-ment. To enable students to feel comfortable about interpreting andusing new knowledge, a literacy course should also teach methodsof structuring a new problem, and methods of recognizing com-monalities and differences in classes of problems so that the transferof learning to a new problem can occur.

Development of the curriculum presented in this paper is the result of teaching portions of the course in various forms over thelast decade. A recent National Science Foundation Course and Curriculum Development Grant allowed us to formalize the cur-riculum into a series of nine modules that a cover a minimum set ofmaterials that we feel is necessary for environmental literacy. Thispaper describes the course that has resulted from these efforts. Assuch, we provide a brief discussion of the theoretical underpinningsof the course, a course description, and the results of a recent assess-ment of the course.

II. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY?

Environmental literacy is hard to define. Scientists, philosophers,and educators including David Orr, Hans Jonas, and StephenSchneider have described the dimensions of environmental literacy.In his book, Ecological Literacy, David Orr, poses the multiplicity ofquestions that the quest for environmental literacy brings:

“The crisis of sustainability and the problems of education are inlarge measure a crisis of knowledge. But is the problem as is com-monly believed, that we do not know enough? Or, that we knowtoo much? Or, that we do not know enough about some things andtoo much about other things? Or, is it that our scientific methodsare in some ways flawed? Is it that we have forgotten things we needto remember? Or, is it that we have forgotten other ways of know-ing that lie in the realm of vision, intuition, revelation, empathy, oreven common sense? Such questions are not asked oftenenough…” [1].

Orr also discusses the importance of a “sense of place” in ecologi-cal thinking. To this we would add the importance of a “sense oftime.” Discussing today’s “technological imperative.” PhilosopherHans Jonas has pointed out that the ubiquity and “causal pregnancyof technology” has increased our reach in space and time to an unprecedented level. This, he argues, calls for a new ethic and responsibility for the technological age. David Orr cites GarrettHardin’s definition of ecological literacy as “the ability to ask ‘whatthen?’” For Orr, in addition to the ability to read and calculate,

January 2002 Journal of Engineering Education 57

A Curriculum to Enhance Environmental Literacy

ecological literacy also implies an intimate knowledge of our landscapes, and an affinity for the living world. It is, too, a systemicview, “to see things in their wholeness” [1].

Stephen Schneider also addresses this issue of environmentalliteracy [2]. He states that it is “an unattainable goal to expect stu-dents to gain a detailed knowledge about the content of all environ-mentally relevant disciplines.” Instead, Schneider proposes that stu-dents should be taught how to ask three questions to the expertsthat include “what can happen,” “what are the odds,” and “how doyou know.” He argues that students do not need to know the tech-nical aspects of opposing views, but they should have the skill toevaluate the credibility of the process. Although we agree withmuch of what Schneider discusses, our thrust in the curriculum isthat to understand the answers to those three questions, the studentneeds a basic level of understanding about the science, technology,and policy associated with the issues.

Since 1996, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) has offeredan advanced placement test to evaluate a one-course content in environmental literacy at the baccalaureate level, titled “Environ-mental Science.” The content is divided into four categories ofvarying weight. From highest to lowest weight, the categories in-clude ecological concepts, environmental impacts, environmentalmanagement and conservation, and political processes. In otherwords, this definition of environmental literacy includes basicknowledge across a variety of disciplines from the sciences to the hu-manities. The heaviest weight is given to the scientific and techno-logical concepts.

Before we began to formulate this course in 1990, we did an in-formal survey of our colleagues in the disciplines of environmentalengineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon. We asked themfor the minimum set of scientific and technological principles thatan environmentally literate person should know and be able toapply. The answers could be summarized as the understanding ofthree broad principles and their consequences: conservation ofmass, conservation of energy, and an understanding of risk and uncertainty.

From these discussions, we conclude that environmental literacyat the baccalaureate level is the capability for a contextual under-standing of an environmental issue to enable analysis, synthesis,evaluation, and decision making at a “citizen’s” level. We identifieda fundamental core of knowledge areas (principles and methods)that is a sufficiently comprehensive set so that the problem area of“environment” can be understood without disciplinary expertise.These core knowledge areas include an understanding of:

� interaction of the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere,biosphere, and anthroposphere;

� first and second laws of thermodynamics, practiced as en-ergy balances;

� law of conservation of mass practiced as materials bal-ances;

� ecological structures and biological evolution;� interaction between population growth and resource

consumption;� industrial ecology, and life cycle analysis frameworks;� risk, focusing on how quantitative risk is calculated, how

it is communicated, and how it can be managed; and� regulatory and ethical frameworks.In addition to the core knowledge areas, an environmental lite-

racy course needs to provide students with the ability to:

� apply a systems approach and understand the limitationsof system models;

� build from their initial understanding of an issue inclu-ding using reliable sources of information and being ableto discriminate among the data; and

� analyze, synthesize, and evaluate alternate solutions.Each of these additional literacy requirements is briefly dis-

cussed in the next section.

III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY

A. A Systems ApproachLarge-scale environmental issues such as global climate change

are studied by bringing together large working models of the atmos-phere, of climate, and of the distribution and dispersion of releases ofmaterials from human activity and evaluating the resulting system. Inhis book, The Web of Life, Fritjof Capra defines a system as “an inte-grated whole whose essential properties arise from the relationshipsbetween its parts” [3]. Thus, an understanding at the systemic levelmeans understanding not just isolated entities, but the relationshipsthat connect these entities. It is also important for students to appre-ciate that the building blocks we normally use—scientific definitionsand principles—are models of the world, being continually refined aswe learn more. While only a specialist can understand the details ofthis modeling, every student of the environment should recognize thecomplexity and inherent uncertainty of results emerging from suchmodels, and what these imply for decision making.

B. Building on Initial Environmental Knowledge A central objective for the course is to move seamlessly between

acquisition of factual knowledge and precise vocabulary, and appli-cation of these to problems in a decision-making framework. Tothis end, core knowledge is presented by approaching concepts thatare already in the students’ mental models. The model of teachingstudents to construct their knowledge is generally called a construc-tivist model [4]. Constructivism is based on two principles firstnoted by Von Glaserfield: “1) Knowledge is not passively received,but actively built up by the cognizing subject; and 2) The functionof cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experien-tial world, not the discovery of ontological reality” [4]. Pedagogicalobjectives such as teaching students how to learn, to become awareof their mental models, and learning styles, and to become respon-sible for their own learning can be incorporated with this approach.

Incorporating new material into the existing cognitive and affec-tive framework involves conceptual change. Conceptual change mod-els of learning have also been described by numerous present-dayscholars including Kenneth Strike, George Posner, and JosephNovak of Cornell, M.C. Wittrock of UCLA, Deidre Gentner ofthe University of Illinois, and Leo Klopfer and Audrey Champagneof the University of Pittsburgh [5]. The mental models approach includes starting with the knowledge students have, providing someunifying principles, and then allowing students to analyze, synthe-size and evaluate the issues. This approach helps students developthe capability to search and find the relevant knowledge for a givenproblem or situation.

Inherent to representing the student’s mental model of a sys-tem are ways to draw the relationships among concepts. Diagrams

58 Journal of Engineering Education January 2002

for representing knowledge frameworks, or logical sequences havebeen used in various disciplines under names such as concept maps, flowcharts, mind maps, and of course, mental models. Novak andGowin discuss extensively the use of two such tools, concept mapsand Vee diagrams [6]. In Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge,

perhaps the most useful primer on a variety of such diagrams,David Hyerle states that learners can use these “to become inde-pendent, flexible, and interdependent builders of knowledge” [7].There is no definite prescription for drawing concept maps, as theyare simply “a schematic device for representing a set of concept


Table 1. Summary of topics included in environmental literacy core knowledge.

meanings embedded in a framework of propositions,” or “mean-ingful relationships between concepts in the form of propositions”[6]. Practically, such a start for a topic also serves as a tool for brain-storming, and for the teacher to observe and correct existing misconceptions.

C. Applying Core Environmental Literacy Knowledge: Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation

Usually, the critical judgment to consider diverse criteria anddiscriminate between options is a faculty developed with expertiseand practice in a given subject area. Yet, environmental literacy re-quires that this evaluative faculty be developed in a “non-expert.”These evaluative skills fit into the traditional knowledge hierarchydescribed by Bloom as: knowledge, comprehension, application,analysis, synthesis and evaluation [8]. We suggest using decision-making scenarios as a way to foster such skills.

A traditional design framework can be used to organize studentlearning of these skills. Broadly, the eight elements of the designframework may be thought of as: (1) issue analysis and problem de-finition, (2) model selection, (3) data collection, (4) data analysis,(5) generation of alternate solutions, (6) selection of evaluation cri-teria, (7) selection of optimal alternative, and (8) communication of

that alternative. At different levels of student learning, different rel-ative emphases may be placed on each of these elements, howeverthe emphasis on decision making is crucial. Pedagogical and moti-vational factors such as teaching knowledge in context, learningthrough trial and error, extended periods for observation and test-ing, using the class material, and ethical responsibility, are all auto-matically built into the decision making approach to learning. Notethat each of these factors is cited by numerous authors as necessaryto attract and retain students [9–12].

Exercises that engage students in situational learning have thegreatest success in generating student enthusiasm in this type ofcourse. Students often correspond with us long after the courseabout decisions they had to make as professionals, or for theirhome, and cite examples of how they used the skills from thecourse. Even when they have not understood the full issue, theyhave learned to recognize and articulate what they do not know, orneed to find out. However, time and other constraints make it im-possible to frame each concept. Misconceptions and inaccurateframing can enter in many ways. Keeping the right level of com-plexity so that the basic learning goals can be met without over-sim-plifying the situation is one of the most difficult challenges of thecourse.


Table 2. Examples of activities included in each environmental literacy module.

IV. THE ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY CURRICULUM

There are many good discipline-specific introductory texts onenvironmental engineering, environmental science, and environ-mental policy. This curriculum does not duplicate those, nor is it in-tended to teach those disciplines. Instead, the curriculum providesfaculty with materials and pedagogical ideas that can be used in classto achieve a participatory, project-based focus that enhances the in-struction of environmental literacy.

The reader should note that we believe that all of the curriculummaterials (core knowledge and the three additional requirements) areneeded to achieve a minimum competency in environmental literacy.However, the curriculum is designed so that faculty can use it as eithera complete literacy course or use segments to supplement disciplinary-specific courses. For example, a professor of chemical engineeringthermodynamics may decide to use the exercises on energy transfor-mations as a supplement. Similarly, a course on water resources mayinclude a segment on the salmon management case study that is in-cluded in this paper. An English professor may choose to target writ-ing assignments based on some of the topics suggested. And so on.

A. The Nine Core Knowledge Areas for Environmental LiteracyTable 1 presents a summary of the topics included in each mod-

ule. Each module includes suggested resources specific to that module. These resources include relevant web sites, classic literary ar-ticles, technical articles, and popular news articles. The list of re-sources is by no means exhaustive and can be either changed or re-placed to suit the teacher.

Since each module is intended to build on the student’s existingframe of reference and to correct and enhance that particular core

knowledge area, developing that existing frame with concept map-ping is part of the initial exercises for each module. Each moduleincludes active, participatory learning via exercises; most of the ex-ercises are within a decision-making context. These exercises helpstudents attain analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills, as well as“learn to learn” skills. Traditional close-ended problems are also in-cluded to help students master quantitative aspects of the coreknowledge area. Multidisciplinary aspects are introduced to buildonto the close-ended problems. Writing and other expressive modeexercises are also included.

A sample of the curriculum materials within each module isshown in Table 2 using the energy systems module as an example.For the concept mapping, Figure 1 illustrates the results of an exer-cise done as a class activity with the results placed on the board. Theexercise starts with what students already know, and that knowl-edge is then corrected, refined, and supplemented as necessary.

B. Environmental Decision Making SkillsTeam-based projects are included as a separate section to sup-

plement the nine modules. These projects are the main tools used to help students master the core knowledge areas. They are basedon open-ended decision-making exercises where students definethe problem, identify alternatives, and make decisions. The holisticprojects can be used to address one core knowledge area, or severalcore knowledge areas due to the inherent multidisciplinary natureof the problems. The projects may be adapted to suit the needs ofthe students and the course, and any of these projects can be usedwith any of the modules to emphasize a different core knowledgearea. Each project incorporates the use of concept mapping, com-munication styles, and information gathering from a variety of


Figure 1. Concept map of energy system: An exercise done as a class activity with the results placed on the board.

sources. Table 3 presents an overview of one of the projects. Thecurriculum includes the following projects that we have developedto date.

� Salmon Management in the Pacific Northwest� What is a Green Product: A Life Cycle Analysis Ap-

proach [13]� Environmental Impact Analysis of the Consumer� A Marketing Plan for Environmentally Friendly Land

Development� Municipal Solid Waste: A Management Plan and Siting

Decision� The Kyoto Treaty Case Study� A Global Agreement to Address Climate ChangeWe used several means of assessment such as homework and

tests, as well as portfolios, to evaluate student learning in a singlecourse that covers the complete curriculum described in this paper.A general assessment of how this particular curriculum design is ef-fective for student learning of environmental literacy is more diffi-cult. The difficulty arises because literacy as we defined it involvesnot just knowledge of definitions and principles, but the ability toapply that knowledge to complicated decision-making contexts in-volving technology and policy.

In addition, it is difficult to design a control for such an assessmentsince the curriculum is for the attainment of a competency, and notfor an alternate approach to attaining such competency. Unfortunate-ly, a control to evaluate the decision-making ability of students whoare only exposed to the core knowledge areas without exposure to thedecision-making contexts has not been done. One instructor didteach two sections of the course one year where one section was onlyexposed to the core knowledge areas without the decision-makingcontexts. However, since the examinations affected student grades,the midterm and final did not evaluate the decision-making ability ofthe students. Both sections performed similarly on those exams thattested only core knowledge areas.

We tried to assess how students’ environmental literacy im-proved as a result of the course based on the curriculum described inthis paper. Limitations of such an analysis are that the results de-pend on a single test that may not evaluate overall literacy, and faculty may teach towards the test, thus, skewing the results. In ad-dition, the assessment results show percent improvement that is de-pendent on the varying knowledge each student brought to thecourse initially. Offsetting these limitations is the fact that the as-sessment results presented are for courses taught by two differentinstructors at two different schools with two different student


Table 3. Example of decision-making project for environmental literacy.

populations. Yet the results were strikingly similar. The instructorsused the curriculum as a basis for the courses, however, they pre-sented the curriculum in their own very different styles, with differ-ent examples, problem sets, supplementary texts, and with differentorganization.

For three cycles of teaching the course, we used pre- and post-tests to systematically assess students’ environmental literacy im-provement at both Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT)and Carnegie Mellon University (CM). Most of the RHIT studentsare required to take the course and come from several engineeringmajors. At CM, students from all disciplines may take the class as anelective; however, students from the humanities and the arts aremost common. General conclusions from these tests are discussedbelow using data from one class in each institution because thetrends in each school over different years are strikingly similar. Theevaluation presented in this section is for 23 students at CM, and 20 students at RHIT. Over the three cycles, approximately 200 students were tested at CM, and 120 students at RHIT.

The assessment test is divided into four sections: (A) current en-vironmental issues, (B) environmental science, (C) environmentalpolicy, and (D) environmental decision making. Questions in sec-tions (A), (B), and (C) ask students to define relevant scientific andpolicy terms and principles (stratosphere, first law of thermody-namics, life-cycle analysis, etc.) that address the core knowledgeareas. The questions are close-ended. Section (D) asks students toidentify and explain environmental problems, and evaluate optimalsolutions.

Students from both CMU and RHIT show significant improve-ment on the post-test at the end of the course. Table 4 shows theoverall percent change, measured by the number correct for each stu-dent and then averaged for each group. The gain was positive for allstudents, with most students doubling the number of questions an-swered correctly. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the comparison (pre- vs.post-tests) graph for each school for different sections of the test,each figure representing individual student improvements in the spe-cific section. Figure 2 compares results for test section (A), Figure 3for test section (B) and Figure 4 for test section (D). The CMU students start with more awareness of current environmental issues(Figure 2) and many of had 100% correct in the post-test. TheRHIT post-test results are similar indicating relatively higher gainfor these students. The pre-test results may be explained by the factthat CMU students choose this elective because of their interest inthe environment while this is a required course at RHIT.

Figure 3 shows that the engineering students at RHIT start withmore relevant environmental science knowledge on the averagethan the CMU students, and both groups of students gain consi-derable knowledge. At CMU, science students and non-sciencestudents showed similar scores in all sections of the pre-test exceptfor the environmental science section. As expected, science studentshad more prior knowledge and thus scored higher on the pre-test,but on the post-test, there was little difference between the groups.Figure 4 shows the results for the section (D) (Environmental deci-sion making) segment of the test, for both sets of students. The re-sults are similar as for the other sections of the test.

In addition to the quantitative gains reflected in the table and figures, students also made qualitative gains. They gave more sophis-ticated answers when asked to identify and explain environmentalproblems. For example, in the pre-test, many students answered thequestion (section D), “name one global environmental problem anddescribe how and why it arises,” by simply saying “ozone layer deple-tion.” However, on the post-test, answers show much more under-standing of the scientific principles and the consequences of ozonedepletion. Students gave answers such as, “depletion of the ozonelayer arises when the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is reduceddue to CFC’s released into the air. This is bad for the environmentbecause the ozone layer serves as a protective shield from harmful ul-traviolet rays.” Before taking the course, most students were aware ofthe popular environmental problems, but after the course, they un-derstood more about their causes and mechanisms. It is this knowl-edge that constitutes environmental literacy.

Anecdotal evidence, though not statistically valid, provides in-teresting information from the students’ perspective. Based on suchevidence students appear to remember the concepts even after thecourse ended. Several former students have said they recalled infor-mation learned in the class when making decisions like what kind ofcar or carpets to buy, and in making health and product choices.Summer interns from RHIT have used life-cycle analysis tools to the benefit of their employers. Several have commented that the problem-solving approach was directly relevant in their job. Further, engineering students at RHIT have used many of the decision-making frameworks in their senior capstone coursewithout instructor prompting.

In some cases, how much a student learned seemed to depend onhow little he or she knew before the class, so a “novelty” effect (i.e.,learning new things) may have contributed to learning. Many stu-dents who did poorly on the pre-test did very well on the post-test,


Table 4. Overall comparison of pre- and post-test results of environmental literacy in the tested student populations at the two schools.

while some students who did well on the pre-test did not show such ahigh degree of improvement on the post-test. Likewise, some “un-learning” may occur which contributes to this as well. A studentcomes in with limited, but correct knowledge about a phenomenon.In learning more about the phenomenon, their conceptual under-standing becomes diffuse, and they lose the core idea and gain a fuzzy“larger” concept. Students realize they do not have the whole picture,

but if the course does not allow them enough time on a concept and itsframework to get the whole picture right, they lose the well-definedcore idea they had (or at least they do not express it in post-test). Agood example of this can occur with large-scale global phenomenon.

For students not majoring in science or engineering, instructorsmust remember that students have limited reference points for scientific vocabulary, and make wrong connections so that concepts


Figure 2. Comparison of pre- and post-test results for RHIT and CM students in test Section A: Current environmental issues.

are easily confused. For example, when providing terms like “firstlaw of thermodynamics” (same as conservation of energy), it is im-portant to make meanings explicit and highlight the relevance ofcommonplace concepts to the technical definitions. This is particu-larly problematic when the word is one of common parlance, e.g.,

power, efficiency, etc. Therefore, it is important to talk about thelanguage, and the need to develop the vocabulary. Even with sci-ence and engineering students, terminology can be a burden sinceeach discipline has its own language for often the same phenome-non, e.g., energy, power, and force.


Figure 3. Comparison of pre- and post-test results for RHIT and CM students in test Section B: Environmental science.

VI. SUMMARY

In describing the environmental literacy curriculum we deve-loped, this paper also summarizes the highlights of our educationalefforts over the past decade. While specific knowledge outcomes

can be measured through tests as described, attitudinal changes area striking outcome of our approach. Over the years, we note that abyproduct of this approach is the confidence and ownership thatstudents develop towards their knowledge. They begin to gain thecompetence to go in search of the facts, analyze, synthesize and


Figure 4. Comparison of pre- and post-test results for RHIT and CM students in test Section D: Environmental decision making.

evaluate data, and examine the ethics of various decisions. Duringthe course we observe the students becoming increasingly adept atsetting up and solving problems, and also become more au-tonomous in their decision making.

At the end of the course, students were asked to write and dis-cuss what they learned throughout the semester. One studentwrote, “What this class has given me are the tools to find out infor-mation in order to make educated decisions about how my actionsaffect the environment. But more importantly, I think, this class hasgiven me the confidence to believe that I indeed have those tools,and I am capable of making intelligent decisions about the environ-ment in which I live. And the ability to make the decisions I willface is as important as the final decision itself.”

Teamwork, collaborative learning and communication are nat-ural byproducts of this course environment. Students take to dis-cussing salient environmental issues and asking for time in class topoint out something they had either read about or heard on theradio. A learning community atmosphere begins to prevail in classas the term progresses. The availability of software systems andelectronic bulletin boards augment this type of teaching by support-ing student teamwork and facilitating communication and themanagement of projects. The general approach of learning in deci-sion-making contexts develops “life-long learning” strategies in stu-dents of all disciplinary majors. The particular robustness of learn-ing by problem solving in decision-making contexts also makes thisapproach enjoyable for the teacher and the students.

The authors are currently putting the curriculum online so thatother faculty can gain access to the material.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded in part by a National Science Foundationcourse and curriculum development grants to Carnegie Mellon University (Grant No. DUE-9653194), and to Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (Grant No. DUE-9709682). We are grate-ful to our students over the last decade of teaching this course forhelping us sharpen our ideas. Garrick Louis collaborated in refiningearly versions of this course. We thank the JEE reviewers for valu-able feedback that is incorporated into this revision. We also thankCatherine Ribarchak for help with the manuscript preparation.

REFERENCES

[1] Orr, D.W., Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to aPostmodern World, SUNY Press: Albany, NY, 1992.

[2] Schneider, S., “Defining Environmental Literacy,” TREE, 12(11),1997, pg. 457.

[3] Capra, F., The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of LivingSystems, Anchor Books: New York, NY, 1996.

[4] Cheek, D., Thinking Constructively About Science, Technology andSociety Education, State University of New York Press: Albany, NY,1992.

[5] West, L.H.T., and A.L. Pines, Conceptual Understanding and Sci-ence Learning: An Interpretation of Research Within a Sources-of-Knowledge Framework, Science Education, 70(5), 1982, pp. 583–604.

[6] Novak J.D., and D.B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn, CambridgeUniversity Press: New York, NY, 1984.

[7] Hyerle, D., Visual Tools for Constructive Knowledge, Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996.

[8] Bloom, B., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longmans Green,New York, NY, 1956.

[9] Tobias S., They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the SecondTier, Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1990.

[10] Rosser, S.V., Female-Friendly Science: Applying Women’s StudiesMethods and Theories to Attract Students, Pergamon Press: Elmsford, New York, 1990.

[11] Rosser, S.V. (ed), Teaching the Majority: Breaking the GenderBarrier in Science, Mathematics and Engineering, Teachers College Press:New York, 1995.

[12] Atman, C.J., and I. Nair, “Engineering in Context: An EmpiricalStudy of Freshmen Students’ Conceptual Frameworks,” Journal of Engi-neering Education, October 1996.

[13] Nair, I., “LCA and Green Design: A Context for Teaching De-sign, Environment and Ethics,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87,no. 4, October 1998, pp. 489–494.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Indira Nair is Professor of Engineering and Public Policy andVice Provost for Education at Carnegie Mellon University. Hercurrent teaching includes courses in environmental science and en-gineering ethics. She holds a Ph.D. in physics from NorthwesternUniversity. She is the co-author of “Journeys of Women in Scienceand Engineering: No Universal Constants,” (Temple UniversityPress, 1997).

Address: Office of the Vice Provost for Education, CarnegieMellon University, 609a Warner Hall, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213; telephone: 412-268-5865; fax: 412-268-2330; e-mail: [email protected].

Sharon A. Jones, P.E. is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technologywhere she coordinates the environmental engineering programs. Sheholds a Ph.D. in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University.

Address: Department of Civil Engineering, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, 5500 Wabash Avenue, Terre Haute, IN,47803; telephone: 812-877-8279; fax: 812-877-8440; e-mail:[email protected].

Jennifer White is a graduate student at the John J. Heinz Schoolof Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon. Her con-centration is in Environmental Policy. She holds a B.A. in Psycho-logy from Carnegie Mellon.

Address: H. John Heinz, III, School of Public Policy and Man-agement, Carnegie Mellon University, Hamburg Hall, Pittsburgh,PA, 15213; telephone: 412-268-8677; fax: 412-268-2330; e-mail:[email protected].


Documents

A Curriculum to Enhance Environmental Literacy