Environmental Literacy Grant_View from Space_VfS 2009

Environmental Literacy Grant VfS 2009

Tech Museum (Friess & Camargo) Page 1 2/21/2015

(i) Objectives & Outcomes The primary goals of this energy & environmental literacy (EEL) project are to:

! increase the capacity of the Tech Museums gallery docent and educational program staff to use the spherical display system to inform the public about the environmental challenges and choices they will be confronted in the 21st Century;

! increase the environmental literacy and awareness of student groups, families and educators visiting the museum’s galleries;

! increase the library of datasets and media programs to use in gallery floor shows, public demonstrations and public performances for tour groups;

! increase use of spherical display system at The Tech among school groups and general public tour groups;

! increase the environmental literacy of museums visitors and VfS exhibit attendees ! articulate and align programs to CA science standards and Tech Challenge (a series of

engineering design challenges that make up part of the educational programs at The Tech).

From an informal education perspective, the expected annual outcomes for this environmental literacy project are note below:

Goals for Grant Sources Frequency Progress Check Due dates

Goal 1—School Site Outreach Metric A –Increase by 50% number of partner sites attending EL programs Event Attendance rosters Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11

1 May 2010/11 Metric B—Increase by 50% number of teachers & ASP professional trained in EL

Event Attendance rosters Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

Metric C—Increase by 100% number of coaches/mentors engaged

Event Attendance rosters Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

Goal 2—After-school Programs & Partner Outreach Metric D—Enroll 10 ASP partners in EL programs

Partner commitments Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

Metric E—Engage 10,00 ASP & Partner participants in Hands-on floor shows & demonstrations

show enrollments; attendance rosters; post-event surveys

Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

Metric F—Increase ASP & Partner attendance to EL labs around Green-by-Design: Solar Engineering Event attendance rosters Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11

1 May 2010/11 Goal 3—Student Engagement Metric G—Offer training to 15,000 K-12 students via EL programs Event registration day-of

survey; post-event survey Day-of 1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

Metric H—Increase Title 1 student participation in EL demonstrations & performances by 100%

Team register form; post-event survey

Day-of & Post-event

1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

Metric I—Survey 20% of annual View from Space performance attendees (n=5,000)

Surveys and evaluations Monthly 1 Dec 2010/11 1 May 2010/11

(ii) Description of Proposed Activities



During the period of this grant, The Tech proposes to develop two gallery and educational programs around the theme of the Environmental Challenges & Choices confronting the planet making use of the VfS spherical display system installed with an earlier NOAA grant in 2005, and to augment gallery floor programming with rich EEL-content. We plan to deploy one program per academic semester of the grant period: 1) View from Space: Dynamic Planet

Type of Project: Demonstration Target Age: 8 and older

The Tech Museum of Innovation (TMI) recently installed an exhibit called “View from Space” which uses technology developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (the “Science on a Sphere” display system), along with in-house customization for a user-driven data kiosk. The goal of the proposed demonstration is to use this exhibit to familiarize the audience with the history of the earth through animation of the plate tectonic history of the earth and incorporation of basic but important concepts in plate tectonics. TMI has already developed several pre-recorded floor shows as well as several live-demonstrations that focus on topics such as climate change, atmospheric dynamics, and planetary geology. This demonstration would add another topic to their selection. Elements of the Demonstration—The demonstration will cover three main learning points:

1. The surface of the earth is made up of plates that are actively moving towards and away from each other, but very slowly. There are features of the continents, such as mountains, and events, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, that are the result of this slow plate movement.

2. We can use different characteristics of rocks to tell us where plates have moved in the past. These include the magnetic orientation of minerals in rocks, particularly the seafloor; fossil evidence of historically adjacent landmasses, and the dating of rocks deposited during mountain building.

3. Using this information we can reconstruct and visualize changes in earth’s surface. This is important for understanding rock, mineral, and oil formation as well as patterns of evolution through time.

These points will be illustrated by focusing on the history of North America through time but may incorporate useful examples from other parts of the world, such as the building of the Himalayas with the collision of the Indian subcontinent into Asia, and the opening of the Atlantic along the mid ocean ridge.

Requirements: imagery to be projected on the sphere—A number of datasets that may be projected on the sphere are available through NOAA and distributed with the Science on a Sphere technology. Datasets that would be appropriate for this demonstration include:

• ETOPO2 datasets: detailed topography and bathymetry of the earth • Earthquake datasets: occurrences and their magnitudes over one week and over 15

years • Plate tectonics and plate animation: animation showing the changing continental

configurations through the last 750 million years of earth history. These are datasets



that are available commercially through NOAA but must be purchased separately from the materials supplied by NOAA1.

Requirements: additional imagery—Includes imagery that could be projected on video screens around gallery. Maps may be more effective if projected on the sphere, but such datasets may not be available as readily as flat imagery. For a number of these categories, GIS data may be available for making custom maps2.

• Map of plate boundaries3 • Illustrations showing different kinds of plate boundaries4 • Map of alternating magnetic anomalies on ocean floor5 • Map of the age of ocean floor based on magnetic anomalies6 • Photographs of key fossils useful for paleobiogeography, particularly those that have

been used to recognize areas that were once adjacent to one another but are now separated due to continental drift. A historically relevant example is that of the Glossopteridales7, a group of seed plants that existed around the time of the Permo-Triassic mass extinction (250 million years ago)

• Maps showing current fossil localities in comparison to maps of those localities on paleoreconstructed maps

• Geologic time scale Evaluation I—Because such a demonstration would require purchase of the plate animation dataset, a front-end evaluation will be conducted to assess whether there is enough visitor interest to warrant purchase and development of a script to support the animation. Evaluation II—If TMI considers the results of the front-end evaluation to be sufficient justification for purchase of the datasets, development of the script can begin. Evaluation of the script will include performing the demonstration for museum visitors followed by written surveys. Written surveys are suggested over interviews because the size of the gallery is more conducive to larger audiences rather than individual or small-group demonstration. Evaluation will require two personnel: one to give the demonstration, the other to take notes of people’s reactions and body language as well as questions posed by the audience. One or both personnel may administer the written survey. 2) View from Space: Renewable Energy

Type of Project: VfS Demonstration Target audience: 8 and older

Major Concepts: Among the many issues surrounding renewable energy, we are interested in promoting the following three concepts:

• First, we would like to express the idea that there are many different sources of energy. 1 Contact information is available on NOAA’s Science on a Sphere website (http://VfS.noaa.gov/datasets/Land/paleo.html). 2 See for example, GIS datafiles for plate boundaries are available at http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/index.htm#data. Investigation of appropriate usage of copyrighted materials may be required. Licensed GIS software maybe required. 3 See http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/pt.info.htm for an example. 4 See http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/Vigil.html for an example. 5 See http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/ofr-99-0132/ for more information. 6 See http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/fliers/96mgg04.html for example. 7 See http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/seedplants/pteridosperms/glossopterids.html for a brief description.



• Secondly, different sources of energy have different levels of impact on the environment (i.e. clean energy vs. fossil fuels).

• Thirdly, the level of impact that our energy usage has is called our Ecological or Carbon Footprint.

What we are calling renewable energy must be understood within the framework of these three concepts. The principal questions surrounding these three concepts include: What is energy? What does it allow us to do? What are the common forms of energy that we use now? What are alternative forms of energy that impact the environment to a lesser extent? How is energy stored? A clear connection must be made between energy sources all coming to the same end, but through different means. In other words, the demonstration must somehow visually depict the connection between what sources of energy allow us to do and how they get us there in different ways. Demonstration descriptions: The following are proposed demonstrations for further research:

1) One possible demonstration would involve allowing the children to interact with and determine their Ecological Footprint. That way they can go home with something concrete about their everyday lives. What sort of activities would visually allow children to understand the notion of an ecological footprint? Perhaps we could have a series of little mini-demos about differences between levels of impact. For instance, if we have three little versions of that idea that have to do with children’s every day lives, they will be able to take those ideas home with them and apply them at home. Take home message: We can leave a smaller footprint on the earth by making simple changes in our daily lives. They could make a “footprint” to take home with them- a visual metaphor.

2) Another idea representing the “Clean Energy” notion would be to show how different sources of energy emit various levels of toxins into the atmosphere. If we can utilize three different energy sources such as oil, coal and steam we could show the children the amount of residue differences emitted by each source. This way the children can have a visual comparison. Take home message: Some energy sources impact the earth less than others. Renewable energy takes a lot less time to renew itself than non-renewable energy sources.

3) We could generate a turbine from different sources. This way we could discuss all three principal concepts at once and address the question of energy. The visually comparative demonstration will allow students to understand the idea of how different sources of energy allow us to do the same thing and get us there in a different ways. Take home message: They could also see the “cleanliness” of each source of energy.

Explanation As part of any version of a demonstration we must be prepared to answer the following questions:

• What is energy? Energy is the ability to do work. • What does it allow us to do? It allows us to live our busy lives: go to school, watch

television, play video games, take the bus, etc. • What are the common forms of energy that we use now? Coal, gas, oil • What are alternative forms of energy that impact the environment to a lesser extent?

Solar, wind, water, geothermal • How is energy stored? This website answers most of these questions: • http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/whatsenergy.html

Energy is the Ability To Do Work



All of these sources provide us the energy we need to live our busy lives. To find out more, click on the Energy Source areas below.

• Renewable energy: an energy source that can be replenished in a short period of time

• Nonrenewable energy: an energy source that we are using up and cannot recreate in a short period of time.

• Renewable and nonrenewable energy sources can be used to produce secondary energy sources including electricity and hydrogen.

Evaluations We will evaluate the feasibility of these demonstrations on the floor of TMI. After the demonstration, an evaluator will ask participants what parts they enjoyed most, areas of improvement and other questions. A separate evaluator will also gauge the audience reaction to this demonstration while it is being given.

Connection to TMI Exhibits These demonstrations are designed to go complement the TMI exhibits on earth sciences, especially Green-by-Design exhibits. Educational Objectives based on National Science Standards:

• Describe the effects on society of scientific and technological innovations (e.g., antibiotics, steam engine, digital computer).

• Analyze the interaction of resource acquisition, technological development and ecosystem impact (e.g., diamond, coal or gold mining; deforestation).

• Identify advantages and disadvantages of natural resource conservation and manage-ment programs.

• Analyze how specific personal and societal choices that humans make affect local, regional and global ecosystems (e.g., lawn and garden care, mass transit).

(iii) Target Audience Target audiences for this project are both public and professional audiences. The public audience comprises both schools and tour groups; while professional audiences are made up of educators and museum professionals & staff. The Tech has over 600,000 annual visitors and 1/6th of them visit the lower galleries and take part in the Science on a Sphere presentations, or View from Space (VfS). From an addressable gallery audience of 100,000 visitors, another



25% participate in floor programs and education demonstrations scheduled 5 times during the day. From the 25,000 participants who will experience the EL demonstration projects, we hope to survey 5,000, or 20% of attendees using both formative and summative assessment tools to be developed for this demonstration. A smaller subset of museum member-visitors will be asked to complete a brief online questionnaire via SurveyMonkey to ascertain the overall efficacy and impact of the exhibit’s ability to increase the EL of visitors (n=250 members, or 1% of addressable sample). The primary audiences will be K-12 students and educators during the week, and families and K-8 kids on weekends. Each year, The Tech welcomes over 200,000 students through its doors, and from among these about 34,000 visit the VfS exhibit, from these 10,000 will participate in EL programs. Accompanying these student groups are around 1,100 educators and instructional aides in K-12 or OST programs, who will participate in these VsF-EL programs. (iv) Institutional Capacity Currently, we have deployed over 15 datasets as noted below, and if funded we plan to implement and further develop the titles listed below as “desired” over the 2 years of the grant.

Animated 2005 Hurricanes in house –used in presentations and kiosk Sea Surface Temps in house –used in presentations 3D Topography night lights in house –used in presentations Sea Current Simulation in house –used in presentations and kiosk CO2 Temp Simulation in house XRAY Sun in house –used in presentations NASA Blue Marble in house –used in presentations and kiosk SeaWiFs in house –used at Kiosk Atmosphere NOAA’s Carbon Tracker desired Carbon Flux desired Aerosol Optical Thickness desired Carbon Monoxide in 2000 desired Acars flight Track and Wind Data in house –used at Kiosk Intl Space Station Track desired GUPS in house –used at Kiosk Real-time Infrared Sat over land desired Land Plate Tects and Paleo Animation desired ($200k licensing?) Earth Topography in house –used in presentations Earth at Night in house –used in presentations and kiosk Cumulative Earthquakes 80 – 95 desired, ASAP Age of Sea Floor desired, ASAP Global fire maps in house (different than what NOAA offers) Ocean National Climatic Data Center, NCDC, Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Data in house –used in presentations Extent of Harmful Human Influences on Global Marine Ecosystems desired Depth of 26° C Isotherm (Year 2005) in house – used at kiosk Ocean Conveyor Belt desired Indian Ocean Tsunami Model, n house – used at kiosk Worldwide Buoy Locations in house – used at kiosk Sea Ice Concentration desired Sea Ice Concentration and Snow Cover desired Greenland Melting Trends desired Models/Simulations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Temperature Change from 1870-2199 desired Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –



Precipitation Anomaly from 1870-2199 desired (v) Educational Partners Emerging Local Partner Commitments & Curriculum Seeding:

• City of San Jose, Recreation Dept. Afterschool Program: committing to bringing 1,000 students, 25 site directors to museum to learn about design challenge; committing to enroll over 50 teams for Tech Challenge 2009-10 and beyond.

o Projected repeat visits for FY-10: once per quarter • Third Street Community Center: committing to bringing 30 low-income Latino students to

museum for design challenge workshops and afterschool labs; committing to forming 2 teams for Tech Challenge 2009-11.

o Projected repeat visits for FY-10: bi-weekly during academic year • East Valley YMCA: committing to bringing over 2,400 students on a monthly basis to museum for

afterschool labs & design-challenge workshops; committing to enroll over 200 teams for Tech Challenge 2009-11

o Projected repeat visits for FY-10/11: quarterly • Girl Scouts: committing to aligning CA troop programming with Tech Challenge and design-

challenge curriculum; exploratory discussions w/ regional planned for November o Projected repeat visits for FY-10/11: quarterly

• Tech Bridge: committing to incorporating design challenge curriculum into Tech Bridge programs, and enrolling 5 all-female teams.

o Projected repeat visits for FY-10/11: twice a year • MESA: committing to embedding design-challenge curriculum and learn-by-doing workshops into

MESA afterschool programming. o Projected repeat visits for FY-10/11: monthly

Additionally, via the Afterschool Science Coalition and the Tech Museum we have a network in place to bring the STEM aspects of the products and prototypes into curricula and exhibits for a larger audience. (vi) Benefit to Partners & VfS Network All content and data will be shared with public and VfS Network partners at workshops and online. Additionally, Tech Museum staff will be happy to assist anyone seeking to implement similar programs at their VfS sites across the network. We welcome sites visits from Networks members and could even foresee sponsoring a training event, if we get funded and are able to secure additional funds for a Network event, in a subsequent grant request. (vii) Equipment & Resources ($29,400)

! Computers: the higher-end, the better. We need five computers plus a spare. Six total, at

$2000.00 each is $12k. ! Projectors: the higher-end the better. We need four projectors plus a spare. Five total, at

$1800.00 each is $9k. ! Projector bulbs: sixteen bulbs (four plus, plus one spare per month per year) sixteen total, at

$400.00 each is $6.4k. ! $2k for misc. supplies such as cabling, power supplies, keyboards, monitors, etc.

(viii) Additional Funding to be solicited We are currently in initial discussions with both corporate and foundation partners around securing funding for a gallery upgrade and renovation for all Earth Science exhibits at the museum. We are currently planning a $5 Million renovation over 5 years to upgrade content at all Earth Science exhibits in the museum, around the theme of “Environmental Challenges & Choices.” We are targeting Chevron Corp., Packard Foundation, Moore Foundation and the



Goldman Foundation each for a $1 Million donation. We are still in the early stages of planning this capital campaign, but have garnered interest from regional players, but it is to early to spell out the overall gallery plans as of yet. We can have further details for you at an interim reporting period. (ix) Dissemination & Replication of Project Results Findings from our work will be both published online on our website and will be presented at informal sector conferences both by Mike Drennan at the annual NOAA-SOS Boulder Network sessions, and by Alysia Caryl at educator forums and venues, in particular, the Out-of-School Time Conference and the ASTC convention. Additionally, curriculum and instructional aides will be shared with educational partners and among OST practitioners in Northern California. (x) Evaluation & Impact Assessment During school fieldtrips and hands-on lab workshops, assessment will prove most comprehensive and systematic via 1) pre-event training tool focusing on task-vocabulary & concept maps, 2) formative assessment to measure awareness & use of pre-event materials by teachers and students, 3) a second in-class formative assessment to measure comprehension of key concepts & methods via concept & prediction mapping, and finally 4) a summative assessment via exit-survey/quiz to measure concept consolidation and integration.



Appendix 1:

EEL Program Goals, Outcomes, and Evaluation Methodology Integral to our mission, The Tech is committed to delivering high-quality, standards-based science education that teaches students key scientific concepts that will help them through their academic and professional careers, motivates them to pursue further study and innovation, while increasing awareness of careers in scientific disciplines. The Year-round Second Classroom program speaks to those essential goals and seeks to: • Increase student interest and participation in mathematics, science, technology and

geography. • Increase student knowledge about careers in mathematics, science, engineering and

technology. • Increase student ability to apply mathematics, science, technology and geography concepts

and skills in meaningful ways. • Increase the active participation and professional growth of educators in science. • Increase family involvement in children’s learning.

While we have been successful in reaching these goals, to date, The Tech sees an opportunity to provide our community enhanced, targeted services by understanding precisely what students and teachers take away from our education programs. By capturing, tracking, and analyzing key data, we can customize our curricula plans around actual needs, along with California content standards, and build our education programs in a progressive academic succession leading from elementary school through high school to provide educational experiences that resonate with students and keep them engaged and excited about learning science.

To accomplish this, The Tech will administer program-defined pre- and post-visit surveys and tests at given intervals to measure short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes of our programs. These surveys and quizzes will capture both qualitative and quantitative data through subjective and objective assessment methodologies, and will be administered to three primary groups on the Museum visit day:

• School groups who visit The Tech’s galleries will receive post visit surveys to consider effectiveness of galleries’ exhibits, handouts and exhibit tools, docent presentations, and pre-visit tools provided to teachers. All group participants, including teachers, students, and chaperones will be asked for feedback.

• School groups who take a Hands-on lab will be asked to take a pre- and post-visit survey (as described above) if they visit the galleries as well as take various objective assessment quizzes or tests prior to and after the Hands-on labs to measure comprehension of key concepts and vocabulary.

• Students, and their families as applicable, who participate in a Tech After-school or weekend programs will be asked to take pre- and post-workshop surveys to measure comprehension of key concepts taught during the workshop. After-school/partner site instructors or aides and/or parents (depending on program) will have an opportunity to provide feedback for these particular classes and will be encouraged to provide the Tech feedback throughout the school year to gauge their student’s or child’s educational progress.



Currently in development, the assessment tools will measure short-term if The Tech’s galleries, workshops, and labs challenge students with new learning material, improve knowledge or understanding of a topic, build upon primary school lessons, and further engage students in science-related topics back in the primary class setting or outside of school as well as examine the effectiveness of our instructors. We will also look at the frequency and effectiveness with which teachers use pre-visit guides and online lesson plans and activities. For longer-term assessments, The Tech is working with our partner organizations to establish control groups, including sample groups from underserved populations, who we will track for one year. We have also contracted with a third-party agency to administer and analyze the survey outcomes. The Tech will work with these control groups over the course of an academic year, and administer surveys a month after their Museum visit and then again at the end of the year. These surveys will reveal student interest in and actual pursuit of STEM subjects and overall educational improvement versus similarly graded students who were not in the control groups (data will be acquired and compared with relevant county and state statistics).



Appendix 2 Today’s Environmental Literacy Crisis

Since 1997 social scientist Jon Krosnick, of Stanford University, has tracked Americans’ awareness, understanding, and opinions about global warming through periodic random surveys. Between 1997 and 2006, he observed a steady increase in public concern about the issue, which spiked sharply upward between 2005-06. He reported, “A vast majority, 85 percent, believes global warming probably is occurring, up slightly from 80 percent in a 1998 poll. But fewer than four in 10 are very sure of it, a level of uncertainty that reflects broad and continued belief that scientists themselves disagree on whether or not it’s happening.” He notes that, in 2006, 64 percent of Americans perceived “a lot of disagreement” among scientists about whether global warming is happening (Krosnick, 2006). Krosnick’s findings are independently supported by Georgetown University Professor Thomas Brewer, who synthesized the results from a variety of surveys conducted between 1989 and 2006 (by ABC/Washington Post, Gallup, ORCA, PIPA, and PPIC) to measure public awareness, understanding and opinions about climate change. Collectively those surveys reveal a consensus among Americans that global warming is happening, and that they are worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about it (Brewer, 2006). And yet Brewer too notes that there is a disparity between Americans’ concerns about global warming and their perceptions of uncertainty and disagreement among climate scientists.

In fact, there is no such disagreement among climate scientists. We recognize and

acknowledge that there is always some uncertainty in all branches of science, including climatology, among even the most well established theories. We assert that, in scientific terms, “uncertainty” is not the same thing as “doubt”; nor is uncertainty, by itself, a cause for disagreement. Earth's average temperature has risen by at least 0.5°C over the last century, climate modelers predict the globe will continue warming through the course of the 21st century, and human emissions of greenhouse gases are major cause of the warming trend—each of these statements are empirically observed, reproducible facts that are not questioned the peer-reviewed climate science literature (IPCC 2007). Where does this mistaken public perception come from? Considering most Americans get most of their science information from TV news and other news media, could such news media inadvertently be misleading the public?

Communications research shows that the quality and style of news reporting significantly

influences readers’ / listeners’ understanding and perceptions about global warming (Corbett and Durfee, 2004). Journalists are trained to “balance” their reports by presenting both (or all) sides of a given issue. Though noble in its original intent, this practice, ironically, sometimes introduces the potential for bias in reports about climate change research. A recent review of the climate science literature reveals no evidence of controversy among climate scientists about whether the globe has warmed by at least 0.5°C in the last century, nor whether humans are substantial reason for the warming due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004). Whereas there may be little or no disagreement among the science community about the fact that the globe is warming and humans are largely the cause of it, journalists continue to seek out dissenting or alternative views to preserve their notion (or at least the appearance of) balance in their reports. Such journalistic practice tends to distort climate science in the minds of non-scientists by fomenting the false impression that there is more uncertainty among scientists than there really is (Corbett and Durfee, 2004). And worse, such journalistic practice lends a disproportionate voice in the mass media to lobbyists and policy analysts who may be more interested in advocating or defending a given political, social, or commercial agenda than educating the public about climate science. “Reality must take



precedence over public relations,” the late, great physicist Richard Feynman once observed, “for nature cannot be fooled” (Feynman, 1986).

Environmental Literacy and Democracy

Generally speaking, “science literate” people have a basic understanding of how biological, chemical, geological, and physical systems work in the natural world. Such people understand the nature of science and scientific inquiry, they understand the processes and methods for gathering the knowledge, and thus they have some ability to assess the validity and relevance of scientific information. However, since no one can know everything, who is to say what set of facts a person needs to know to be deemed truly “science literate”? We acknowledge and commend AAAS Project 2061, which has published a detailed definition and learning progression maps of what citizens should know in order to be science literate (AAAS, 2007).

Scientist Jean Mayer once opined that science literacy isn’t a measure of what one knows,

but rather is a measure of one’s skill at gathering information about a given subject together with one’s ability to distinguish credible from non-credible sources. Not everyone is concerned with promoting science literacy; there are many agendas driven by social, political, and commercial interests and therefore “spin” abounds. This fact carries serious implications for the quantity and quality of the information available via the Internet today. Given that the Internet places exponentially greater information at the public's fingertips than was previously available, ‘discernment of credible sources’ is an essential skill for the science literate person.

We believe that science literacy matters because science and democracy go hand in

hand. Science engenders democracy by evolving how people think, and by enhancing how they interact (Kuhn, 2003). Science is a uniquely human endeavor (as far as we know) which promises to improve our understanding of the natural world and, hopefully, to improve our quality of life. The public, therefore, has a say in whether and what science will be supported using public tax dollars, and whether and how the fruits of science should be integrated into society in applied ways. The more scientifically literate the citizens, the likelier they are to understand news reports about a given science subject, to effectively participate in public dialogues about that subject, and to vote according to their views regarding science policy decisions. “Climate science literacy” in particular, requires citizens to understand three basic concepts: (1) climate scientists operate under the assumption that Earth’s climate system is understandable, and therefore predictable; (2) the field of climatology is progressive and cumulative, and understanding of Earth's climate system is still evolving; and (3) climate scientists rely upon empirical evidence—which can be reproduced and validated through peer review.



Appendix 3:

Educational Gallery Floor shows and programming in VfS-exhibit:

Globe/Media (Subject) Script Background Content

1. VfS Logo (Introduction)

• Hi, My name is __. This is VfS. w/ projection system developed by National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Point out most interesting information from sidebar.

• Have you heard of global warming? It’s being discussed all over the place today. Earth warming up is one part of climate change. There’s a lot of other things that happen on Earth besides the temperature going up! Scientists actually prefer the climate change because it covers all the different systems of Earth and how they’re affected by humans.

In this presentation we’re going to talk about how one part of human activity on Earth is affecting climate change.

• projection system using a REAL sphere (not a hologram)

• sphere is 5 1/2 feet in diameter and hung from wires above

o made from carbon fiber, weighs about 60 lbs

• 4 projectors sending 4 different images to the sphere

• run by a computer that takes the information and feeds a different image to each projector projecting on to the globe.

• the images represent data collected by NOAA either over a period of time or a geographical area

2. Blue Marble (Earth and

Atmosphere)

• Let’s talk about what “climate” means and how that’s different from weather. If I were to ask you what the weather is today, what would you do? (wait for audience).

• Okay, so weather has to do with what’s happening day-to-day: the temperature, humidity and clouds among other things. Climate, on the other hand, refers to weather that is measured over long periods, like decades or centuries.

• Scientists know that Earth goes through normal cycles of warming and cooling. BUT, they think that

• This dataset [NASA’s “Blue Marble”] shows a typical Earth day (w/o night).

• Made up of a year’s worth of satellite images.

• Almost all life on Earth exists in that 12 mile zone. This is known as a biosphere.

• The water is 6 miles at the deepest ( & generally only 1-2 miles deep!).

• The atmosphere is limited, only about 6 miles deep (on this globe about the thickness of a dime).




we’re making our current warming trend worse.

3. Slides: Greenhouse Effect [on a

spinning Blue Marble?] (CO2 &

Greenhouse Effect)

• Scientists believe one contributing factor to climate change is the “greenhouse effect.”

• The greenhouse effect is a normal system where gasses in the atmosphere act much like the glass in a greenhouse. These gasses trap some of the warmth from the Sun in the atmosphere and make Earth a livable planet.

• BUT! These days, we’re putting

more and more CO2 and other gases in to the environment & it’s changing Earth’s climate. Where do you think that carbon dioxide is coming from? Take guesses

• In the past a significant amount of this heat went back into space.

• Greenhouse gasses: water

vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone.

• If people have a hard time w/

greenhouse effect, can bring up our Moon & Venus as the polar opposites of what can happen. Moon: no greenhouse effect, barren land that cannot sustain life. Venus: very thick greenhouse effect – can’t sustain life either.

5. Lights at Night

(CO2 Causes)

• Burning fossil fuels is the primary source of CO2 production from human activity.

• What do I mean by fossil fuels? take examples

• Here’s one small example of burning fossil fuels: the lights of Earth at night. Thousands of cities, and billions of people! 40% of the world still gets their electricity from coal burning power plants.

• The last 100 years of human activity match a dramatic increase in temperatures and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

• If we’re using the one w/ wild

fires: also talk about slash & burn farming in Africa. This is similar to the burning of the rainforests in South America – burning down the very CO2 “sinks” that keep our air clean.

• Point out other places in the

world. 51% of power in the US comes from burning coal.

• Alternative energies: discussed in

exhibit next door. One thing to remember, there are many pros and cons when talking about biofuels – some of them raise nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbon, and other emissions. Also, the energy used to grow the crops must be taken in to account.




5. GFDL CO2x4 (Future

Temperatures due to CO2). Start w/ 2000

locked then fwd slowly to ~2150.

• Now let’s look at what scientists predict might happen if we continue burning gas, coal, wood, and so on.

• This dataset assumes that we

increase CO2 levels at a rate of 1% per year (compounded) from the year 2000 – 2140. At that point, CO2 levels have quadrupled. After that, atmospheric CO2 levels remain the same (we take out as much CO2 as we put in the atmosphere). Temperatures continue to increase for a long time. This delayed warming is due to the influence of the world's oceans, which store and release heat over very long periods of time. The CO2 data is from ice cores, tree rings, etc. The temps up to 1800 or so are estimated.

• The prediction starts in 2000 with current temperatures in green & yellow.

• You can see that in 2030, 2060 & 2090 red indicates ~ +5-10°F.

• By about 2150 temps have increased in some places ~15°F.

• Scientists believe this will

happen with only 1°C of average global temp rise: Damage to coral reefs; losses of crop yields in Africa of around 10 per cent; extinctions of species in tropical mountain forests; dangerous floods in the Himalayas; increased frequencies and extremes of flood and drought; malaria will spread up mountains; dengue fever will also begin to spread.

• One way scientists have figured out the human connection is by studying ice cores. The layers of ice can tell us the different amounts of gasses that were in the air at different times in history. They’ve figured out that CO2 and temperatures actually go side-by-side.

• Current ice core data allows us to go back ~800k years.

7. Slides: Charts of

• CO2 Put into Air

• Ways to Reduce CO2 [On a spinning

Lights at Night?]

(CO2 in the Air)

• This chart indicates the amount of CO2 that humans are putting into the air. About 7 billion tons per year and increasing!

• This is approx. the weight of 1100 Great Pyramids of Egypt every year!

° Notice what will happen (increase) if we take no action!

• Can we take the necessary actions

• Changes: consumer having a




8. Blue Marble (Conclusion, Learn More, Take Action)

to protect our environment? • Some of the things we can do are

related to the issues we’ve talked about here:

• 1.More efficient use of electricity and renewable energy sources like solar & wind energy. 2.Transportation innovation: fuel efficient vehicles 3. Reduce industrial CO2 & promote recycling

• Californians have lead the nation in a number of ways:

• We lead in clean air programs & regulations going beyond the federal government.

• In the last 20 years, We’ve become tops in recycling – 48% of the 78tons of waste (per year) in CA is being diverted from landfills!

What do YOU think we can do to change our culture so that we can make a positive change on the environment? (Give some resources like climatecrisis.net, realclimate.org, etc.)

voice, letting industry know. • Smaller, independent

companies specializing in environmentally responsible products (Method – cleaners, other solar cell companies, ZAP vehicles, etc)

• Los Angeles air might still be dirty, but it’s much cleaner now than 30 years ago.

3.Industial innovation: more energy efficient residential & commercial buildings. 4.Building innovation: Conservation programs & CO2 sequestering. 6.Goverment innovation. . Reduce greenhouse gases from federal buildings & transportation fleet.

Bibliography: • Original VfS scripts • An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore • NOAA.gov, & Report to the Nation • NRDC.org • EPA.gov • climatechange.gc • environment.about.com • Scientific American, Sept 2006 • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS.gov) • NASA.gov • http://VfS.noaa.gov/new (gallery)

* Other Action to Talk About?: Learn More about Global Warming. Take Action: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Consume Less, Conserve More. Get things that last, and are efficient. Turn off Lights, etc. when not needed. Reduce Heating and Cooling. Leave the car at home; walk, use bikes & buses. Support Renewable Energy Sources. Encourage Others to help. Encourage Elected Officials to Help. Support Environmental Groups. Keep Learning, Stay involved.



References AAAS Project 2061 (2007). Communicating and Learning About Global Climate Change: An

Abbreviated Guide for Teaching Climate Change. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Global Climate-Change Resources. http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/climate_change_guide_2061.pdf

Abbasi D. R. (2006). Americans and Climate Change Closing the Gap Between Science and Action: A Synthesis of Insights and Recommendations from the 2005. Yale F&ES Conference on Climate Change. Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/

ABC News (2007). Concern Soars About Global Warming As World’s Top Environmental Threat, ABC News/Washington Post/Stanford Poll, http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1035a1Environment.pdf

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2007). Project 2061: A long-term AAAS initiative to advance literacy in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. http://www.project2061.org

Borchelt, Rick and Gail Porter. (2002). Communicating the Future: Best Practices for Communication of Science and Technology to the Public. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bestpractices/practices.html

Boykoff, M.T. and J.M. Boykoff (2004). Balance as bias: warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change. 14; pp125-136.

Bruner, J. (1992). The Narrative Construction of Reality. In H Beilin and P. Pufall (eds.). Piaget’s Theory: Prospects and Possibilities (pp 229-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Corbett, J.B. and J.L. Durfee. (2004). Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming. Science Communication. 26, 2, pp. 129-151.

Feynman, R. (1986). Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle, Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

Fuller, R. B. (1981). Critical Path. Saint Martin's Press, New York, pp. 183. Fuller, R. B. (1962). Education Automation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, p. 49. Fuller, R. B. (1971). World Game Series: Document One; The World Game: Integrative

Resource Utilization Planning Tool. World Resource Inventory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, http://www.williambowles.info/b_fuller/WD_Book.pdf

Gordin, D.N. and Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for Scientific Visualization as an Educational Technology, Journal of the Learning Sciences. (4) pp. 249-279.

Haven, Kendall (2005). Voice of the Mind: The Amazing Power of Story. A summary presentation of recent research about storytelling, presented at a NASA Goddard Space Flight Center colloquium. http://esdepo.gsfc.nasa.gov/calendar/view.php?id=95&year=2006&month=05&day=03

IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007). The Physical Science Basis. (Summary for Policymakers). http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM17Apr07.pdf

IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007). Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. (Summary for Policymakers). http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf

IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007). Mitigation of Climate Change. (Summary for Policymakers). http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf



Krosnick, J. A. et al. (2006). The Origins And Consequences Of Democratic Citizens’ Policy Agendas: A Study Of Popular Concern About Global Warming, Climatic Change. Issue Volume 77. pp. 7-43 http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/pdfs/GWNationalSeriousness.pdf

Kuhn, R.L. (2003). “Science as Democratizer.” American Scientist. (91), pp. 388-390. Launius, Roger. (2003). Evolving Perceptions of Spaceflight in American Culture. Acta

Astronautica. V53, pp 823-31. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J., & Chrostowski, S.J. (2004). Findings From IEA’s

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, pp. 107-127. http://isc.bc.edu/PDF/t03_download/T03_S_Chap3.pdf

Miller, Jon D. (2004). Space Policy Leaders and Science Policy Leaders in the United States. A report submitted to NASA; on-line at http://esdepo.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/files/NASA_Leadership_Report.pdf

Morrissey, W.A. (2000). Global Climate Change: A Survey of Scientific Research and Policy Reports. Congressional Research Service Reports. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Climate/clim- 24.cfm?&CFID=717375&CFTOKEN=70465581 National Science Board (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington: Government

Printing Office. www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c7/c7s1.htm National Science Board (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington: Government

Printing Office. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/ Nowotny, Helga (2005). High- and Low-Cost Realities for Science and Society. Science. v308;

May 20. pp. 1117-18. Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton. Pinker, S. (2000). The Language Instinct. New York: Perenial Classic. Project 2061 (1990). Science for All Americans. American Association for the Advancement of

Science (AAAS), Oxford University Press, New York. Tananis, C., Tamler, L., Seeley, M.M., Bunt, N., Chrostowski, S. J. (1999). TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Achievement Reports. Countries' Profiles of Relative Performance in Science Content Areas, Exhibit 3.2, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, http://timss.bc.edu/timss1999b/sciencebench_report/t99bscience_chap_3_3.html

Documents

Environmental Literacy Grant_View from Space_VfS 2009