INTEGRATING SOCIAL STUDIES INTO AN EARTH SCIENCE SOIL
ANALYSIS UNIT: A HISTORICAL IMPACT STUDY
By
Paula M. McElroy
A PROJECT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED SCIENCE EDUCATION
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERISTY
2009
Copyright © Paula M. McElroy 2009
This project “Integrating Social Studies into an Earth Science Soil Analysis Unit: A
Historical Impact Study,” is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED SCIENCE EDUCATION.
DEPARTMENT OF COGNATIVE AND LEARNING SCIENCES
Signatures:
Advisor _______________________________________________
Dr. Kedmon Hungwe
Department Chair_______________________________________________
Dr. Brad Baltensparger
Date __________________________________________
Abstract
Integrating Social Studies into an Earth Science Soil Analysis Unit:
A Historical Impact Study
By
Paula M. McElroy
According to the Michigan High School Science Content Expectations, scientific
inquiry, scientific reflections and social implications are the foundational building blocks
to a successful education program, and essential in order to prepare students for “postsecondary engagement.” (MDE, 2006) Many Michigan high schools and even more
secondary science teachers are experiencing the tension between teaching through inquiry
and fulfilling content standards, both of which are mandated by local school districts and
the Department of Education. Interdisciplinary or thematic teaching is one of the ways to
accomplish these important tasks and increase student understanding. Incorporating
thematic units into science curriculums not only meets the foundational building blocks
of science, as defined by the Department of Education, but also allows students to learn
under conditions that are more conducive to deeper understanding.
The purpose of this study was first, to determine if it is possible to successfully
connect Earth Science standards to Social Studies standards. Secondly, the study was
designed to examine ways of connecting Earth Science to Social Studies’ themes in order
to help students better understand the importance of both disciplines in real world
contexts.
iii
This study took place at Marlette High School in the “thumb” of Michigan. The
Soil Analysis unit was implemented in an Earth Science class comprised of 28 students
who were all junior and seniors and was considered a special education inclusion class.
The students completed a soil analysis of the area owned by the local school district.
They then took the data collected from this analysis and drew conclusions about the
human impact of that environment over the past 200 years.
Qualitative research methods were used to compile data based on pre and post
behavior and knowledge surveys, student lab reports, and teacher observations.
Together, these knowledge instruments were used to triangulate data in a qualitative
format.
The findings of this study showed that students could successfully learn through a
thematic unit that was made up of both science and social studies attributes. The results
also showed that the use of interdisciplinary units have the potential to help students learn
in a deeper way. Finally, the data, in combination with current educational literature,
would imply that students can learn better when they are exposed to real world scenarios.
The qualitative evaluation of this data showed positive aspects of implementing science
and social studies standards in a single unit and that, in some areas, students showed that
they understood that these subjects could be interrelated. Finally, triangulation of the
qualitative results from the student surveys, the written lab reports, and my own
observations showed that students made some connections between science and social
studies disciplines and MDE benchmarks in both subject areas through inquiry learning
practices. In addition, these results point out that students are able to learn through
interdisciplinary units when they are able to make connections with the “real world.”
iv
Acknowledgements:
The most important person in the success of this project has been my husband
who has walked with me through each step of the process. Tom has spent weeks away
from home while I worked on course work in Houghton, gave ideas on how to integrate
lessons into my class, became my research partner in Ticonderoga, New York, and was
my sounding board and proofreader during the writing of this project. I could not have
accomplished this without his support and participation.
Secondly, I must thank my family who supported me and was patient when Mom
was not around during the summer months and “busy” during the school year. I
appreciate their support because I could not have taken the time to finish this project
without their understanding.
I also want to thank my advisor, Dr. Kedmon Hungwe. He has been very
supportive with critical advice and direction. It was with his suggestions that I embarked
on this Soil Analysis Unit and Human Impact study.
Finally, I would like to thank the professors at Michigan Tech who led by
example and filled my mind with hundreds of ideas and the motivation to go home and
try them in my classroom. I know I am a better science teacher because of their input. I
particularly want to thank Dr. Brad Baltensparger and Dr. Theodore Bornhorst who have
inspired me greatly.
v
Table of Contents:
Abstract .................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................v
Lists of Tables and Figures .................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Statement of the Problem .....................................................................1
Focus Questions ...........................................................................................2
Michigan Standards and Benchmarks ..........................................................3
Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................6
Perspectives from the New Science of Learning ..........................................9
Inquiry Learning and Scientific Literacy ....................................................10
Chapter 3: Historical Impact Study.......................................................................15
Procedures, Methods, and Results ..............................................................16
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methods ............................................................22
Context of Study: Students and Facilities ...................................................22
Development of Instructional Unit .............................................................24
Knowledge Instruments ..............................................................................25
Implementation ...........................................................................................30
Chapter 5: Results .................................................................................................36
Student Survey Results ...............................................................................37
Student Lab Report Results ........................................................................41
Discussion of Student Work .......................................................................46
Teacher Observations Results .....................................................................50
Summary .....................................................................................................56
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................58
Educational Implications ............................................................................61
References ..............................................................................................................63
Appendix A ............................................................................................................65
Appendix B ............................................................................................................67
Appendix C ............................................................................................................69
Appendix D ............................................................................................................71
vi
Appendix E ............................................................................................................77
Appendix F.............................................................................................................79
Appendix G ............................................................................................................81
Appendix H ............................................................................................................82
List of Tables and Figures:
Table 1: Taxonomy of Intra- and Interdisciplinary Instruction .............................7
Table 2: Student Pre-Survey Results ....................................................................37
Table 3: Student Post-Survey Results ...................................................................37
Table 4: Student Lab Report Findings ...................................................................42
Figure 1: Comparisons of Pre and Post Student
Knowledge and Behavior Survey ........................................................38
vii
Chapter 1: Problem Statement:
According to the Michigan High School Science Content Expectations, scientific
inquiry, scientific reflections, and social implications are the foundational building blocks
to a successful education program, and essential in order to prepare students for “postsecondary engagement.” (MDE, 2006) Many Michigan high schools and even more
secondary science teachers are experiencing the tension between teaching through inquiry
and fulfilling content standards, both of which are mandated by local school districts and
the Department of Education. Interdisciplinary or thematic teaching is one of the ways to
accomplish these important tasks and increase student understanding. Incorporating
thematic units into science curriculums not only meets the foundational building blocks
of science, as defined by the Department of Education, but also allows students to learn
under conditions that are more conducive to deeper understanding.
I have been teaching for the past thirteen years in both private and public schools
in the state of Michigan. During those thirteen years, I have taught eight years of science
ranging from 7th to 12th grades in General Science, Biology, Physics, and Earth Science.
I have also taught twelve years of social studies in grades 7th to 12th grades in US History,
World History, Economics, and Advance Placement World and US History. Science and
social studies education is my passion, not just my job. I am always looking for better
ways of incorporating science into my social studies classes and social studies into my
science classes.
Many educators comment that this combination is unusual or even a bit strange;
however, I feel that these subjects easily complement each other. In addition, it is my
1
educational philosophy or goal to make both science and social studies real in my
classroom. I firmly believe that connecting learning with real world experiences is the
best way to engage students and bring about long term learning.
Traditional education programs have trained our students to believe that each
subject is a world unto itself. From the conception of public education, educators have
divided up the day and instructional lessons into subject areas. By fragmenting education
into little “blocks” called subject areas that have a defined time period, separate
homework assignments, and even different instructors, we have denied students the
ability to see the interconnectedness of learning. Reality does not work this way, and it is
not how our brain works at its best. However, as educators, we continue to set up our
schools and curriculum in the same traditional formats. This is because that is how we
were educated, it is how our communities expect us to educate their youth, or it is the
easiest way of fulfilling the educational expectations of parents and students.
Focus Questions:
The purpose of this study was to investigate ways of connecting Earth Science
standards to Social Studies standards. This study used a thematic approach with a view
to enabling students to better understand Earth Science content and better prepare them to
be scientifically literate. My goal was to explore ways of connecting Earth Science to
Social Studies themes in order to help students better understand the importance of both
disciplines in real world contexts. An Earth Science unit was created. The learning
objectives for this Earth Science unit were:
1. Students will use science testing equipment (soil collector, glassware, testing
chemicals, and color charts) to gather data about the soil quality (Nitrates,
2
Phosphates, Potassium, Aluminum, Copper) of several test sites in the vicinity of
the school.
2. Students will use the data collected to draw conclusions about the probable land
use over the past 200 years at each testing site.
3. Students will demonstrate an understanding of how science and social science are
related by successfully completing a series of lab and test questions.
Michigan Standards and Benchmarks:
The learning goals were designed to meet Michigan Department of Education Science
Standards for High School Earth Science. Some of those standards are:
E1.1A Generate new questions that can be investigated in the laboratory or field.
E1.1B Evaluate the uncertainties or validity of scientific conclusions using an
understanding of sources of measurement error, the challenges of controlling
variables, accuracy of data analysis, logic of argument, logic of experimental
design, and/or the dependence on underlying assumptions.
E1.1C Conduct scientific investigations using appropriate tools and techniques.
E1.1E Describe a reason for a given conclusion using evidence from an
investigation.
E1.1f Predict what would happen if the variables, methods, or timing of an
investigation were changed.
E1.1g Based on empirical evidence, explain and critique the reasoning used to
draw a scientific conclusion or explanation.
E1.2B Identify and critique arguments about personal or societal issues based on
scientific evidence.
3
E1.2k Analyze how science and society interact from a historical, political,
economic, or social perspective.
E2.4B Explain how the impact of human activities on the environment can be
understood through the analysis of interactions between the four Earth Systems.
E3.p1B Explain how physical and chemical weathering leads to erosion and the
formation of soils and sediments.
This study was also designed to meet Michigan Department of Education Social
Studies standards. The purpose of social studies is to develop social understanding and
civic efficacy (the readiness and willingness to assume citizenship responsibilities and to
make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a democratic
society.) (MDE, 2008) Some of the MDE Social Studies standards that will be met
during this unit are:
II.2 – All students will describe, compare, and explain the locations and
characteristics of ecosystems, resources, human adaptation, environmental
impact, and the interrelationships among them.
V.1 – All students will acquire information from books, maps, newspapers, data
sets, and other sources, organize and present the information in maps, graphs,
charts, and timelines, interpret the meaning and significance of information, and
use a variety of electronic technologies to assist in accessing and managing
information.
V.2 – All students will conduct investigations by formulating a clear statement of
a question, gathering, and organizing information from a variety of sources,
4
analyzing and interpreting information, formulating and testing hypotheses,
reporting results both orally and in writing, and making use of appropriate
technology. (MDE, Social Studies Standards, 2008 )
In conclusion, this instructional unit and the learning objectives it contains has
been a part of my long term goal of improving science and social studies’ instruction in
my classroom, through inquiry and real-world experiences. Therefore, the data and
information gathered through this research project will continue to be used to further
improve my daily instruction and bring about long term learning in my students. The
following chapter will examine the current educational literature and how cross
disciplinary units and inquiry learning can improve the ability of students to learn in
meaningful ways.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Instruction that integrates different subject areas allows students to better
understand the world around them. This, in turn, enables students to be more
scientifically literate and to develop as responsible world citizens. This concept is often
called interdisciplinary, and according to William McComes, 2009, is defined as crossing
the boundaries between one field of study and another. McComes goes on to explain that
there are several justifications for teaching interdisciplinary units in science.
Philosophical perspectives would say that interdisciplinary teaching gives students the
ability to experience learning in a more holistic and authentic way. Secondly, the
psychological perspective would explain that blended science is better for students
because it is easier for students to learn when connections can be made through realworld experiences. Thirdly, the pedagogical perspective would encourage
interdisciplinary methods, because this kind of teaching is less constrained and therefore
increases teacher effectiveness when students have the ability to explore concepts that
have personal meaning. Finally, the practical perspective would show that
interconnected science is important to learning because it can “energize and refocus
students. Looking at the world in new ways and permitting content to be viewed deeply
and from multiple perspectives is one of the strongest reasons to recommend an
interdisciplinary approach” (McComes, 2009, pg. 26).
William McComes, 2009, has also developed a taxonomy of levels of intra- and
interdisciplinary instruction in science. The following chart summarizes this new
taxonomy and how it relates to blended science units. This research unit would fall under
Level III.
6
Table 1: Taxonomy of Intra- and Interdisciplinary Instruction
Level
0
Level
I
Level
II
Level
III
Level
IV
Level
V
No cross disciplinary connections: Science is taught within the traditional
boundaries of subject areas.
Intradisciplinary: Science is taught connecting various aspects of science
content as seen in a General Science course.
Intradisciplinary: Science is taught making specific connections between
science disciplines.
Interdisciplinary: Science is taught connecting at least one other nonscience discipline in a single classroom.
Interdisciplinary: Science is taught connecting at least one other core
discipline with other instructors.
Interdisciplinary: Science is not the sole focus of study. Many disciplines
are connected in a theme that is taught be several instructors over many
disciplines.
In addition, Gerald Holton (1996), in an address given to the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, explained that teaching the fundamental aspects of science and
science education, such as testing a hypothesis, modeling, and instrumentation, are not
enough. According to him, science must also be accompanied by the “art of imagination”
(Holton, 1996, p. 183). He explained that there are three kinds of imagination that are
vital to successful science. These are visual imagination, analogical imagination, and
thematic imagination. The use of these kinds of imaginations is commonly found in
interdisciplinary or thematic units.
Several accounts by teachers show that units that are connected to both science
and social studies have been very successful over different age groups and geographic
locations. Examples include the thematic approach of the Alaknagik School in Alaska in
which the entire school studied thematic units tied to either science or social studies.
This study demonstrates that when students learn to view each individual class as
separate, unconnected disciplines, “the result is that students often miss the meaning of
7
the information and they lack the ability to apply what they do learn” (Peters, Schubeck,
Hopkins, 1995, p. 633). The holistic approach of the Alaknagik school district is based
on the theory that students learn best when they can organize information into complex
webs called “schemata” which allows information to become meaningful (Peters,
Schubeck, Hopkins, 1995).
Another example of interdisciplinary instruction comes from Linda Easley’s use
of cemeteries as science labs. Easley describes using a trip to a local cemetery to engage
students in “real-world science” (Easley, 2005, p. 28). According to Easley, using
cemeteries for classrooms provides connections to mathematics, social studies, and
language arts which are combined into a unit that requires student to do scientific inquiry.
In addition, Martha Woods, an Education Ranger at Pettigrew State Park in North
Carolina, shows how lessons in archaeology can meet both science and social science
objectives. The instructional lessons included in the “Secrets of Lake Phelps” use
scientific inquiry to teach interdisciplinary lessons that are not only connected to the real
world, but also bring about meaningful learning for students in both subject areas
(Woods, 1994).
One of the best instructional examples of using social studies and science to teach
more meaningful lessons is Paul Nagel and Richard Earl’s article on “Bringing the Ocean
into the Social Studies Classroom.” This article described how oceanography can be
used to “enlighten” and “energize” the teaching of 7th- 12th grade social studies. The
authors went on to describe “hooks” of oceanography that can stimulate students’
interests in social studies. Nagel and Earl state that “by their very nature, environmental
problems require an understanding of their natural science and social science aspects”
8
(Nagel, Earl, 2003, p. 263). The concept of the interconnectedness of science and social
science is at the heart of this study.
Finally, Jared Diamond’s book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies, is a great real world example of the use of science to explain the history of
humankind. Diamond is a geneticist who also studied languages, and his love of both
science and social studies produced this Pulitzer Prize work. He says that the “book’s
subject is history but the approach is that of science” (Diamond, 1999, p.26). The same
love for both subject areas and the need to incorporate multiple disciplines to produce
real world results is the basis for this study.
Perspectives from the New Science of Learning:
The brain is better able to learn under conditions that allow for real world context
or examples. Teacher decision making reflects their personal mental models of education
(Caine and Caine, 1991). If teachers believe that subjects are naturally fragmented into
categories like science, social studies, art, and math, then they will teach like that.
However, the world is interconnected and so teachers are challenged to shift their view to
one that is more interdisciplinary (Caine and Caine, 1991). If students and teachers look
at subject areas as isolated units that have little or no relevance to each other, then
students often miss the meaning of information or are unable to apply newly gained
information (Caine and Caine, 1991). Students learn best under conditions where
subjects are connected to real world experiences and when subject areas are
interconnected (Caine and Caine, 1991).
9
It is important, as educators, that the information we present be connected to the
students’ sense of meaning. One of the ways to accomplish this is to connect subject
areas together to real world contexts.
Teachers need to use a great deal of real-life activity, including classroom
demonstrations: projects; field trips; visual imagery of certain experiences;
visual imagery of best performances; stories ;metaphor; drama: and the
interaction of different subjects. Mathematics, science, and history can be
integrated so that much more information is understood and absorbed than
is currently the norm. Success depends on using all of the senses and
immersing the learner in a multitude of complex and interactive
experiences (Caine and Caine, 1991, p.94).
Inquiry Learning and Scientific Literacy
Many public educational institutions are building their curriculum and educational
goals based on national and state standards, and science literacy and inquiry are major
components due to their role in the national science standards. This, in turn, requires
schools and individual educators to define what science literacy is, and to determine if
inquiry learning is the best method to achieve it in students.
The National Science Education Standards (NSES) identify three goals of science
education that apply for ALL students. These goals can be summarized as: to learn
science, to learn to do science, and to learn about science (ReSciPE Book, 2006). Inquiry
learning also plays a major role in these standards and the educational practices they
support. The inquiry process in science involves the active participation of students in
the process of doing science. It would include content knowledge along with the skills
needed to do science or its methodology (ReSciPE Book, 2006).
Inquiry focuses on
student-centered learning process rather than a teacher centered process. Science literacy
then becomes an important part of the National Standards since many of the major
10
components include understanding the process of doing science, which de-emphasizes
content and focuses on the big picture.
The NSES, therefore, defines scientific literacy as: “the knowledge and
understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision-making,
participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity” (National Research
Council, 1996). In the NSES, the content standards define scientific literacy. However,
this definition is used in two ways. First, it deals with the abilities students develop to do
science through the process of designing and carrying out investigations. Secondly, it
refers to the teaching and learning strategies that enable students to learn scientific
concepts through inquiry investigations. This is not a simple definition. Because science
literacy is defined by all the content standards, this definition is not a few sentences long,
but requires hundred of pages which categorizes science literacy into grade levels as well
as the traditional science disciplines of life, physical, and earth science.
The National Science Standards (1996), however, explains that science instruction
should include science inquiry as practiced and carried out by the professional scientific
community, and inquiry in the classroom as it pertains to science content and lab
investigations. The combination of inquiry in science and in the classroom results in
students who should be able to ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from
curiosity about everyday life. In addition, students should also be able to describe,
explain, and predict natural phenomena, be able to read with understanding articles about
science in popular press, and be able to engage in social conversation about the validity
of the conclusions (National Research Council, 2000). The National Research Council
(2000, p. 25) describes five essential features of classroom inquiry:
11
1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.
2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and
evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.
3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address
scientifically oriented questions.
4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative
explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding.
5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.
This definition implies that students should be able to identify scientific issues at
a national or local level, and evaluate the quality of scientific information based on its
source and the methods used to produce it.
The NSES’ definition of science literacy and the content standards that comprise
it are very similar to Michigan’s Science Benchmarks. Both focus on the ability to learn
science, “Using Benchmarks,” the ability to do science, “Constructing Benchmarks,” and
the ability to learn about science, “Reflecting Benchmarks.” Both NSES and the
Michigan benchmarks rely heavily on the inquiry definition of science literacy, although
both do have content knowledge that may not be as heavily focused on in inquiry
definitions.
Jim Ryder also defines science literacy as the ability of a person to use science in
their everyday life. He writes that the goals of science should have a life-long learning
perspective. He also notes that public school science education should provide students
with the key concepts that are likely to be important if they are to develop confidence to
frame questions, and it should promote a positive attitude towards engaging in science,
because students should feel they are capable of participating or interacting with science
as adults (Ryder, 2001).
Ryder writes that science communication is a distinctive
learning aim under this definition and therefore would also include inquiry learning.
12
However, Ryder also notes that this type of learning is “most appropriate to secondary
school teaching” (Ryder, 2001, p.6). This does not agree with the Michigan Science
benchmarks since they include inquiry learning in all grade levels. Ryder also writes that
the ability of developing student knowledge along with how to do science can appear to
be “hopelessly naïve” without serious modifications to existing teaching strategies
(Ryder, 2001).
DeBoer (2000) believes that curriculum standards create pressure on teachers to
get through the material, promote an environment that inhibits students from asking
questions, and constrain the science process of inquiry. He concludes that standards
should be used as “guideposts not blueprints” in defining science literacy, and that
science education will be more successful when the burden of requiring ALL students to
achieve mastery of content is removed (DeBoer, 2000). Obviously these views are in
direct opposition to Michigan’s view of science literacy.
In this study, my understanding of inquiry learning is that students will be able to
engage in scientific questions, to collect evidence to formulate explanations, and to
evaluate and justify their own explanations as they communicate with each other.
(National Research Council, 2000). The adoption of the Michigan Merit Curriculum,
which emphasizes the inquiry approach and content knowledge, makes it all the more
important to adopt curriculum that reaches across disciplinary lines, and incorporates
science and social studies content, and real-world contexts. The overall goal, however,
does not change - to provide the best instruction to all of our students.
Current literature shows that students learn best when they can connect learning to
experiences that have real-world contexts. Instructors can incorporate units that are
13
interdisciplinary and use science inquiry to produce these educational environments
which are better for student learning. This was the goal of this research study and the
11th and 12th grade Earth Science Soil Analysis unit that it incorporated. The following
chapter will look, in detail, at the methods used during the internship that I completed at
Fort Ticonderoga, New York which used a soil analysis survey in order to draw
conclusions about the history of the human impact at this site.
14
Chapter 3: Historical Impact Study
This unit plan came into existence after finishing my internship at Fort
Ticonderoga, New York. I took the information learned and the experiences gained from
this internship and applied it to my own classroom by developing a Soil Analysis unit
that would do approximately the same thing, around my own school district on a smaller
level. It was this internship that provided the experiences and knowledge to design and
carry out this Soil Analysis unit.
My family has close ties to the fort and its staff, and I feel there is an important
connection to the welfare of the fort and its grounds, and the historical implications it has
on our country’s past history. The fort and its grounds have experienced a remarkable
array of men and armies during pivotal periods in our nation’s history. It is also unique
because the extensive land holdings the fort controls, have allowed the historical areas
around the fort to be relatively untouched by modern development or the encroachment
of the town of Ticonderoga.
The purpose of this internship was to do soil analysis around the expansive
grounds owned and controlled by the Fort Ticonderoga Association (see picture below).
With fort approval, I established a testing line approximately from the Lighthouse Point
on Lake Champlain (Long: -73.38019; Lat: 43.84924) to the mouth of the La Chute
River/Lake Champlain (Long: -73. 39765; Lat:
43.84402). The testing line generally followed a
southwest direction, but also needed to curve slightly to
the northwest in order to avoid Fort Ticonderoga or the
Pell Pavilion, which were historically sensitive sites and were requested not to be
15
disturbed. (See Appendix E) The final sites and locations for this testing line were
determined and approved by Fort Ticonderoga designated staff.
Procedures, Methods, and Results:
Every 100 meters along the testing line, a testing site was established using a
Garmin Etrex Legend to record GPS coordinates. (See Appendix E) There were fifteen
test sights over a 1500 meter range. At each test site, a small soil or water sample was
taken for the purpose of testing for elements and chemical compounds.
A water sample was taken from Lake Chaplain on the northeast side of the
peninsula and one from the La Chute River/Lake Champlain on the southwest side of the
peninsula. For each sample, tests were conducted to determine coliform levels (picture
below), dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphates, and turbidity. Data from these tests
indicated the level of human impact on the
water located directly around the fort. In
addition, the water found at the
Lighthouse Point, on the northeast side of
the peninsula, was limited to Lake
Champlain. However, the water taken at
the southwest side of the Peninsula was primarily from the La Chute River.
Control samples were taken from the La Chute River in the town of Ticonderoga
below the water treatment plant, from the La Chute River above the water treatment site,
from a site on the north end of Lake George, and from two sites located to the north and
16
to the south of the fort on Lake Champlain. These control samples also gave me a base
value to compare water quality data at the fort. The significant changes or differences in
water quality readings near or around the fort, compared to those at the control sites,
allow for the reasonable conclusion that human activity at the fort is the cause for any
changes.
Low levels of dissolved oxygen are an indicator of large concentrations of plant
growth, which is usually indicative
of high nitrate, nitrite, and
phosphate levels in the water.
High levels of these compounds are
indictors of human wastes or
agricultural run-off. The additional
tests of nitrates and phosphates confirmed these conclusions. This was especially
indicative when found in the La Chute River (see picture above) since water treatment
plants, as found up stream from the fort, are required by law to discharge their water with
high levels of dissolved oxygen and low levels of nitrates and phosphates.
Turbidity testing was used to show the concentration of particulates in the water.
Lake Champlain is notorious for the high amount of silt and muck found in it. Turbidity
readings outside of the levels found in the control samples indicated higher amounts of
sediments around the fort. Higher sediment levels around the fort could be caused by
decaying wood structures from Colonial and Revolutionary War armies that are now
underwater.
17
Fecal coliform tests were used to determine the level of human or animal waste
found in the water. Higher levels of fecal coliform could be caused by large
concentrations of human usage, on or around the fort, or by agricultural run-off if present
day farming practices are using natural fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers.
Chemical fertilizer run-off would cause high levels of nitrate or phosphate levels, but
would show low levels of fecal coliform.
Soil samples were taken at each
of the fifteen test sights using a soil
probe (see picture to the right). The
probe took a soil core that is one inch in
diameter and approximately nine inches
deep. This allows for testing of the soil
at specific depths. All holes produced by the soil probe were filled in with silica sand.
At each test site, soil tests were ran at 1-3 inch, 3-6 inch, and 6-9 inch depths. This
technique revealed any differences in the human impact on the soil over different time
periods.
Soil pH, nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, and ammonia concentrations are all
indicators of human or animal presence. High levels of these materials can be caused by
human wastes, farming practices, such as the use of fertilizer, or large concentrations of
decaying plant life. From a historical point of view, these levels would be higher in areas
that were inhabited by large concentrations of people, such as where armies were
encamped. In more modern times, these tests showed evidence of farming or the
presence of farm animals such as cows, horses, etc.
18
Conversely, nutrient depleted soil showed the overuse of heavy agricultural usage
of the land, in which the nutrients from the soil were used faster than they could naturally
be replaced.
Large concentrations of humus (organic matter) were indicators of deforestation
or suggested an agricultural use of the land. Positive tests for metals (copper, lead,
aluminum, iron, magnesium, and manganese) were indicators of human industry.
In the deeper strata, the presence of metals showed the levels of human and
military occupation that used large amounts of copper, lead, and iron such as musket
balls, cooking pots, or gun parts. In
shallower strata, the presence of metals,
including aluminum and magnesium,
suggested the presence of an industrialized
society using and living on or around the
test sites.
High sulfur levels in the soil were indicative of large concentrations of gunpowder
being used near the testing site, and would be expected in areas of intense past military
activity, as found in Revolutionary War “hut” sites and suspected powder magazines.
The depth of soil where these chemical indicators were found gave a relative date
for when each of these human activities had taken place, based on known occupational
levels provided by curatorial staff at the fort (see picture above).
All of the samples were analyzed off site because of the need for running water to
complete chemical tests, the need for setting up a table to facilitate testing, and the usage
19
and disposal of testing chemicals. The lead tests were sent out to a professional testing
company: Environmental Hazard Services located in Richmond, Virginia.
Soil tests included: pH, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorus, potassium, humus, calcium,
magnesium, ammonia, manganese, aluminum, sulfur, chloride, iron, copper, and lead (see
picture below). Lead samples were taken at each site, but only at occupational levels for
military engagements. High levels of lead would only be expected in sites where military
engagements had taken place and therefore left traces of lead in the soil. The expense
precluded the need for lead tests at every depth.
Control samples were taken in several areas. These sites are located on fort
property across route 74. These sites were chosen under staff recommendation with
similar ground cover and modern day uses (wooded, field, farming). Control samples
were tested at the same depths as the
survey samples. These control samples
were then used to compare data.
Significant differences, in the test
results, between the control samples and
the samples taken from the peninsula,
allowed for conclusions to be made about the kind and approximate age of the human
impact that caused these changes. Control samples taken at different ground cover were
important so that variables associated with ground cover (plant growth) and usage could
be eliminated.
Observations were made and recorded based on the type and diversity of
wildlife/plant life found on the peninsula over a period of a week. In addition,
20
information found in the Natural Resources Inventory taken in 1992 was reviewed and
included in determining the quality and variety of life found on the peninsula.
After the conclusion of the testing, the data was collected and compiled in an
organized format. Conclusions, based on the data and on-site observations, were made,
in written form, about the level and type of human impact on the peninsula over the past
four hundred years. This report was given to the museum to be used as they saw fit.
After completing this internship and having multiple discussions with the curator of
the fort and its collections, the Fort Ticonderoga Association is very interested in having
more sites tested in the future. According to the fort curator, this is the first of this kind
of soil and water analysis done for the purpose of finding human impact at a specific
location or time period. This kind of research will help fort staff determine future areas
of interest or confirm historical uses of a particular site without having to disturb the site
through archeological digs. The research can also be used to determine future sites for
archeological study. This research study certainly does have real-world contexts to it,
and makes connections to the real world easier for students to understand.
I took the information learned from this internship and applied it to my own
classroom by developing a Soil Analysis unit that would do approximately the same
thing, around my own school district on a smaller level. My goal was to investigate
whether students would be able to make connections between human land usage over
time and the Earth Science methods needed to take and analyze soil samples.
21
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methods
In designing the Soil Analysis unit for this study, my goal was to incorporate both
science and social studies into my Earth Science class. In teaching sequence, this unit
followed three introductory units, including science skills, basic structures of the Earth
and its processes, and mapping the Earth’s surface. During these units, students were
exposed to several real-world experiences which taught them to think and do basic
inquiry style labs. It also taught students basic Earth Science content about the chemical
make-up of soil, and Social Studies content relating to humans’ impact to their
environment. In addition, students were able to see the connections between the science
and social studies disciplines, and review basic science processes, such as collecting data,
writing and using a hypothesis, and developing conclusions based on evidence collected
during an investigation.
Context of Study: Students and Facilities:
The study took place during my Earth Science class. This is the only Earth Science class
offered at Marlette High School (See picture to
the right).
Marlette is a small community located in
the “thumb” of Michigan. Marlette is classified
as a rural school that has a significant number of
low income or “at risk” students. Low income
is defined by the federal government’s free and reduced lunch program in which 75% of
Marlette’s students are eligible for. “At risk” students are defined as special education
22
students or those with a record of social deviance. Fourteen percent of Marlette’s student
body is made up of special education students, and a large percentage has had some kind
of court intervention. These factors make education in this kind of community especially
challenging and even more important. Lack of funds, financial difficulties and needed
support on the part of the Marlette community makes reaching these students even more
challenging.
The Earth Science class that this study took place in has even higher numbers of
low income and at-risk students than the average classroom at Marlette High School.
The class was considered to be a remedial/inclusion science class for students who cannot
take Chemistry or Physics or are in special education. It was made up of twenty eight
students. Nineteen of those students were male and nine were female. Of the twenty
eight students, ten were classified as special education. A special education teacher was
assigned to the class to support those students. Most of the students have had little to no
success in science classes in the past and have also had very little science lab or science
practicum experience. This combination of students made for a very challenging learning
environment and made thematic and real-world science even more important. These
were the students that traditional science education had left behind. They either could
not, or would not, learn under traditional methods. The choice, then, became does the
public education system give up on them and focus on those student who can learn
science content in a traditional way, or should it change its methodology to meet these
students’ needs?
More than half of the Earth Science students had little to no experience with doing
science labs prior to this class. This deficiency is due to the set up of special or remedial
23
education science classes at my school district. The reality is that many of these student
have taken resource room science, which includes worksheets and the once a week pick
up of teachers’ recycling boxes. Remedial science, in the past, has been taught by
teachers who relied on worksheets and lecture notes. Because of these problems,
students have either been passed along based on social promotion, or have not passed any
science classes at all.
Development of Instructional Unit:
I started my Earth Science class with a Copper Panning lab activity the first day
of class (See Appendix A). This activity was an abbreviated inquiry lab which required
students to determine a method for separating copper from a bag of dirt based on the
density of the individual materials. The activity required students to think through the
problem, come up with their own solution, gather data, and calculate simple density
problems. This gave students a lab experience, but also sent a message that this class was
going to be different than what they had experienced in the past, and it set up the
beginning of the process of preparing students for the Soil Analysis unit.
Following the Copper Panning lab, my students completed at least one inquiry
style lab per week. This accomplished two things. First, it allowed them to better
understand the content that was being learned and discussed during that week. Secondly,
it gave them practice and preparation in inquiry labs needed to successfully complete a
lab unit. All of these labs were short “mini-labs” that required one or two class periods.
In addition, students were exposed to Earth processes, such as how soil is formed
and the basic structure of the Earth. A significant period of time was devoted to covering
the mapping to the Earth’s surface. This instructional unit taught students not only the
24
theory of mapping, but also gave them real world scenarios in how to read and make their
own maps. Part of this processes also included how to use GPS units, and how to make
and use maps using GPS coordinates. The GPS mapping activity (See Appendix B) was
also very important to this Soil Analysis unit because the end result of the activity was a
student generated map of the district using GPS/ UTM coordinates and landmarks around
the district. The students were told to hang on to this map because it would be used to
mark soil testing sites for the Soil Analysis unit. All of these activities taught not only
science content, but also the science skills needed to successfully complete the Soil
Analysis unit.
One of the important assumptions going into this unit was that I knew most of my
students had no prior experience with doing labs that required the use of chemicals.
Chemistry has tended to be a class set aside for the more academically inclined students,
and only one of my Earth Science students had had any Chemistry background. I had to
write instructions for using chemicals clearly, and I reviewed instructions multiple times.
Knowledge Instruments:
I used several instruments in order to gage student understanding and successful
completion of my unit objectives and state standards. First, I used Likert-type items to
test student knowledge and beliefs before and after the implementation of this unit (See
Appendix C). This test was based on a number scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning
strongly disagree or no, and 5 being strongly agree or yes. The following were all of the
questions used in the pre- and post-student survey:
25
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Social studies and science are related.
Science can help us understand history.
Science is connected to the “real world.”
Social studies is connected to the “real world.”
I can find or discover information that will be useful to my
community.
6. Labs can help me better understand the “real world.”
7. I can successfully complete a chemistry lab.
8. The chemical makeup of soil has to do with what humans have
done in the past.
Generally, these questions can be divided up into two main categories. The first
category focused on the interconnectedness of science and social studies and
encompassed the first three questions plus Question #8. The second category of
questions looked at the inquiry aspect of this lab unit. Questions #4-7 were designed to
determine if students had gained knowledge, confidence, or real world connections
through inquiry learning.
Questions # 1-3 and 8 were designed to show whether students believe there are
connections between social studies and science classes. These questions were meant to
show students’ beliefs about how these disciplines are interrelated. In addition, they were
connected to my research goals because they showed if students understood the
connections between science and social studies and the perceptions many students had
about educational disciplines. In particular, Question #8 was designed to see if students
understood the connections between the chemical content of soil (science) and the human
impact on that soil (social studies). Therefore, this question not only related to the
research goals of interdisciplinary teaching, but also, the content benchmarks that were to
be taught during the implementation of this unit. Questions # 4-7 were designed to show
whether students believed that science labs are connected to real world contexts or
26
meaningful learning and to find out the confidence level of the students prior to and after
completing a complex lab. These perceptions are directly related to the research goal of
using inquiry learning to teach students content knowledge and making them
scientifically literate. Inquiry science is, by its very nature, tied to connecting
instructional knowledge and practice to “real world” contexts. In addition, the MDE’s
social studies inquiry standards ask students to specifically connect their inquiry learning
to how it affects their individual communities (MDE, 2008). Because part of the research
goals of this study was to meet not only science standards, but also social studies,
Question #5 was used to determine students’ understanding of the connections to
classroom inquiry learning and their own communities. Question #7 was a very
important question to the inquiry process because it showed the students’ confidence
level in a lab scenario that many students had not had previous experience with. Because
inquiry was a major component of the research goals of this study, this question was
important to the success of those goals. Questions #8 was given to students to measure
whether students thought that the chemical makeup of soil or the role of humans could be
used to determine human impact, either in the present or past, and to relate to the unit
goal that students would learn Earth Science content through interdisciplinary
connections and the use of inquiry.
In addition to the 1 to 5 scale, there was one open-ended question that asked the
students to complete this sentence: “I learn best when…” Answers from this open ended
question were compiled and compared with answers prior to the implementation of the
Soil Analysis unit, and after the students had completed the unit. These responses were
27
used to determine what kind of learning activities and educational environments help my
students learn the best.
In addition to this knowledge and behavior test, students were required to turn in a
complete lab report, which included written procedures, a student generated map with
their soil sample locations on it, a complete and organized data table with identified
variables, a conclusion that is based on data gathered by the lab group and from the rest
of the class, and a measurement of student participation during the lab unit. The lab
report asked students to write the basic structures that are required in the process of doing
science.
The procedures were used to determine whether students’ understood the science
inquiry process in order to produce lab procedures that would be detailed and clear
enough to be useful to the lab groups, and showed the lab groups’ ability to work out a
solution to the lab question of determining human impact by studying the chemical
content of the local soil. This skill would also show that the students had met parts of the
Earth Science and social studies standards, and would then show that students had gained
content knowledge and the success of connecting both disciplines (MDE, 2008). The
student generated map showed the students’ ability to use a GPS unit and coordinates to
map the Earth’s surface. This is a skill required by Michigan’s Earth Science standards
and was related to my research goal of connecting standards and improving students’
content knowledge (MDE, 2008). The data table was required of student so that I could
determine whether students were able to record, not only their own data, but also the data
from the other lab groups. This skill was vital in order for students to be able to draw
conclusions based on this data. which would show their understanding of the content
28
standards, their understanding of the inquiry process, and the success of the
interconnectedness of the lab unit. In addition, collection and organization of data is part
of the inquiry standards in both Earth Science and social studies and would meet my
research goals of teaching content knowledge through interdisciplinary methods (MDE,
2008). Student conclusions would be used to determine if students were able to take the
experiences of the lab, the data collected, and the student generated map and draw
conclusions about the human impact on the soil and what that meant for the local
community. Students’ abilities in this area would show me whether they were able to
learn Earth Science content about the make up of soil and social studies content about the
role of humans on their environment through an interconnected inquiry style lab unit.
Finally, students’ participation would help me to determine if “all” students were able to
participate, and therefore, be successful in all of the previously discussed areas of the lab
unit. The lab report was graded using a rubric which defined the essential features of
inquiry and can be used to determine student success in this inquiry unit. (See Appendix
F)
Thirdly, I recorded observations about student success and understanding of the
science process and the content associated with this unit on a daily basis. These
observations, in addition to the statistics from the study surveys and the formal grades
associated with the lab reports, gave me the assessment information needed to determine
if students successfully met my instructional goals and the state science and social studies
benchmarks associated with this unit.
In addition, the evaluation of this data showed if students had successfully
learned through a thematic unit that is made up of both science and social studies
29
components. This data helped me to determine if the use of interdisciplinary units did
indeed help students learn in a deeper way. Also, it showed if students are better learners
when they are exposed to real world scenarios as the educational literature suggested.
Finally, the evaluation of this data helped me to evaluate my success in implementing
science and social studies standards in a single unit, and to determine whether students
understood that these subjects could be interrelated.
Implementation:
This unit was implemented over a period of ten, 74 minute class periods.
Day 1: Introduction/ Soil Sampling
I explained to the class the purpose of this study and its connection to my course,
my work at Fort Ticonderoga, and my work at Michigan Tech. I explained the student
survey and asked students to be honest, not to put their names on it, and to have Mrs.
Lorenzen, the special education inclusion instructor, collect the papers so I would not
know whose answers they were. Students seemed to take the survey seriously, and all
but one student completed it. I explained to the class about my work over the summer at
Ticonderoga and what results I had found because
of it. I explained that we would be doing the
same thing only on a smaller scale. I handed out
the instructions for the Soil Analysis unit and
explained the directions to the students (See
Appendix D). I also showed the students some of
the tools we would be using. Students chose their own groups of 4-5 people. They then
30
decided where their groups wanted to collect their samples from based on the mapping
experience from the GPS Mapping activity (See Appendix B). I wrote group numbers
and collection sites on the board so that everyone could see where we would be collecting
from, and so that the collection sites would be spread out over the district (See Appendix
G). We then had just enough time to go outside and take the first two samples. I showed
the class how to collect the soil sample outside, and gave a demonstration of how to use
the soil sampler.
Day 2: Soil Sampling
On the second day of the unit, we finished getting soil samples. I opened class
with a review of the instructions, and a reminder that it was important to watch the other
groups complete their soil sample so they would know how to do it.
I also reviewed the purpose of the lab and the students were able to explain, in
discussion, that they were looking for signs of human impact at different soil levels
because that would be different time periods.
The class finished getting four samples in
the same time it took us to get two samples the day before. There were no major
incidents during the hour. The class went to
the far end of the district and collected
samples without any problems (see picture to
the left). I reminded students at the end of the
hour that they would need safety glasses for
the next class period, and that because of the chemicals, they would not be allowed to
wear open toed shoes, that girls with long hair might want to tie it back, and that they
should not wear their best clothing.
31
Day 3: Soil Extraction
The students produced the soil extract needed to accomplish the rest of the
chemical tests. Most of the students came to class prepared for a chemical lab. I went
over the directions at the beginning of class and demonstrated the procedures for the
entire class. There were many students who either did not have their lab instructions or
had lost them.
After getting everyone settled and getting the directions out, including new copies
of the directions, I went over safety procedures for everyone and let the students get
started with their work.
All of the samples were filtered successfully, which in itself is a
small miracle since I had difficulty getting
1/3 of my samples to filter successfully the
first time for the Ticonderoga survey.
Students started making their data tables
while the samples were filtering so that
they would have them for the next day
when we started collecting data from the chemical tests. Most of the students were able
to get both samples filtered and cleaned up. There were a few groups who needed more
time for the filtering process. They cleaned up everything but the filtrate, which I
dumped for them at the end of the school day.
Day 4 – 7: Chemical Testing:
The students started the individual testing of their soil (see picture above). The
class did pretty well. There was some confusion with lab instructions, and a few had to
start their tests over because they had not followed directions. Most groups got three to
32
four tests completed during the class period. There was a little down time, and some
groups had to wait for the test to become available since I had a limited number of
supplies. Students continued working on their chemical tests by determining what tests
their groups still needed to complete and what tests were available.
Students finished
the first set of tests and neutralized their soil extracts, and a few started on the last set of
tests.
I took pictures in class to record the students doing their chemical tests.
Finally, students were supposed to finish their chemical testing. I had a
discussion with the students at the beginning of the hour, reminding them of proper lab
behavior and expectations.
About half of the groups were able to finish their testing and
the other half had a few more tests to do. Student groups finished their testing with one
more class period and then used the rest of the class period to work on their lab write-ups.
Day 8: Lab Reports
The class worked on their tests, on
making their data tables, and on mapping
their sites (see picture to the left).
However, the last test from the last group
was not finished until the end of the class
period. I then made the decision to give everyone one more class period to finish their
lab write-ups and to get the data. No one would have been able to work on their
conclusions without all the data, which had not been completed until the end of the hour.
Day 9: Class Discussion and Conclusions
After all of the data had been collected by all of the groups and displayed on the
classroom board, I lead a class discussion in which students were able to share their
33
findings with the class. I asked students to pick out results from the data table on the
board that seemed to stand out from the other lab results. I then asked students to explain
why they thought these numbers were different. At first, students were reluctant to give
any answers. It was immediately obvious that they were afraid of being wrong in front of
the class. So, I started by asking the class to look at one group’s results in particular. I
asked them, “Why do you think the nitrate levels for this group are so much higher than
everyone else’s?” I had several answers that all basically meant that the group had done
something wrong with the testing. However, one of the students from that group spoke
up, noticeably upset that her classmates thought she had tested the sample wrong, and
pointed out that their sample had been collected right next to a farmer’s field and that the
farmer had probably used fertilizer on his crops, giving the high levels (see Appendix G).
Once the class had heard this student’s explanation, the rest of the students seemed to
have a better idea of what to look for.
I had several students point out that there were high levels of nitrates and
phosphates on the football field, but only at surface depths (1-3 inch range) because the
school was spreading fertilizer on the field. That conclusion raised the point from
another student that the first group, near the corn field, had high levels of nitrates
throughout the depth of the sample because the farmer had plowed the field, whereas the
football field had not been plowed. Finally, I had several students point out that the
highest levels of iron were the samples taken near the high school building, and that they
believed this was due to previous construction that had occurred there in the past. After
this discussion, I gave students time to finish up their labs and they were instructed to
34
turn them in at the end of the class period or no later than the beginning of the hour the
next day.
Day 10: Unit Summary
I collected lab reports and started the process of grading and collecting data from
the written work.
In addition, I handed out the Soil Survey again to students and had a
student collect them for me. I had a class discussion about the unit, the findings of the
class, and the importance of this information to the community and to the students
themselves. This “debriefing” was vital to the success of this unit. Students needed this
time to think about what they had accomplished, and to make the mental connections
between the work and how it related to themselves.
The following chapter will show the specific results of the knowledge instruments
used. It will look, in detail, at the student responses to the pre- and post-surveys, the
results of the individual student lab reports, and my own observations taken throughout
the unit. These results will then be used to determine if the research goals of this unit
were met and what the educational implications are for other units like this one.
35
Chapter 5: Results
This research study was based on qualitative or descriptive analysis. Qualitative
research techniques are “more appropriately applied to action research efforts” (Mills,
2003, p.51). Three main strategies for qualitative triangulation are experiencing,
enquiring, and examining (Mills , 2003). Three instruments were used. The first
instrument was a student knowledge and behavior survey which measured how students’
knowledge and behavior about the science process, inquiry learning, and the
incorporation of social studies into science units had changed over the course of this unit.
Student surveys, like the one used in this research project, would be classified as
“enquiring.” Secondly, students were required to complete a formal lab report which
gauged their ability to understand the process of science and the content involved in the
unit. This type of knowledge instrument would be categorized as “examining.” Thirdly,
teacher observations during the implementation of this unit gauged student progress
during the process of this instructional activity. Teacher observations, like this, are
described by Mills as “experiencing”. Together, “experiencing”, “enquiring”, and
“examining”, are legitimate ways of triangulating qualitative research to draw
conclusions based on action research (Mills, 2003, p.52).
36
Student Survey Results:
Table 2: Student Pre-Survey Results:
Quest
#
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Question
Social studies and science are related
Science can help us understand history.
Science is connected to the “real world.”
Social studies is connected to the “real world.”
I can discover information that will be useful to
my community.
Labs can help me better understand the “real
world.”
I can successfully complete a chemistry lab.
The chemical makeup of soil has to do with what
humans have done in the past.
Mean
Score
3.23
3.85
4.00
3.67
3.16
Standard
Deviation
0.97
1.20
0.96
1.07
1.03
4.27
0.81
3.46
3.61
1.12
0.92
Mean
Score
3.30
3.88
4.08
3.56
3.60
Standard
Deviation
1.35
1.15
1.02
1.02
1.05
4.27
0.86
4.00
4.50
1.11
0.69
Table 3: Student Post-Survey Results:
Quest
#
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Question
Social studies and science are related
Science can help us understand history.
Science is connected to the “real world.”
Social studies is connected to the “real world.”
I can discover information that will be useful to
my community.
Labs can help me better understand the “real
world.”
I can successfully complete a chemistry lab.
The chemical makeup of soil has to do with what
humans have done in the past.
37
Mean
Student Knowledge and Behavior Survey
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Question Number
Figure 1: Comparisons of Pre and Post Student Knowledge and Behavior Survey
Student answers on the knowledge and behavior survey were remarkably similar
between the pre- and post-surveys, except in a few of the questions. The results that
stood out the most can be seen in questions #5, #7, and #8. These questions in particular
showed an increase in the mean score between the pre and post test. Question #8, which
asked students if the chemical makeup of the soil has to do with what humans have done
in the past, showed an increase in the mean of 0.89 in student knowledge. The data
appears to indicate that there was an impact. This was particularly important since this
question was designed to show, in combination with other observations, if students did
understand the content of the Soil Analysis unit and if they understood the importance of
human impact on the levels of certain chemicals in the soil. This understanding would be
important for showing that students met state science and social studies standards.
Question #1 was very similar to Question #8 and basically asked students the
same thing. However, students’ responses for Question #1 did not change between the
pre- and post-surveys. I believe that had I emphasized the social studies aspects of this
38
unit during the first few days, students’ survey results may have been more in agreement
especially for Question #1 and Question #8. One way to easily accomplish this would
have been to show students historical maps of the school’s district and take the class on a
walking tour of the district using those maps. This would allow students to see the past
human land usage of their proposed sites prior to testing. This would also have allowed
students to predict results prior to testing.
Question #7 was designed to show if students’ knowledge about the process of
doing science improved. The original mean showed that many students did not feel
confident in successfully completing a science lab that required them to handle chemicals
and follow detailed directions on how to handle those chemicals. This was also in
agreement with my own classroom observations and prior student experience. The post
survey showed an increase in the students’ mean answer of 0.54. This could imply that
after completing this lab, students were more confident in their ability to complete a
complex lab which required them to use materials that they had previously had little
experience with. If this were the case, it would show that students met the state science
and social studies standards for inquiry.
Question #5 also showed an increase in student response. This is also important
because this question asked students if they could discover information that would be
useful to their communities. This question was important to determining if students
understood the real-world context of this type of lab. It also would help to show the
students’ understanding of the importance of this kind of learning in their communities.
This, in particular, was tied to the social studies inquiry benchmarks, as laid out by the
Michigan Content Standards. The student mean increased by 0.44, which is a small
39
increase in the students’ understanding of inquiry and the importance of this lab for their
own communities.
There were several questions that showed very small or no gains in the student
mean. Questions # 1, 2, 3, and 6 showed very little or no change. In addition, Question
#4 showed a small drop in the student mean. These results show the need for more study
in the future. Given more time, more students, and possibly additional classrooms and
instructors, these areas could be studied in more depth in order to determine if students
truly did not make any cognitive gains in these particular areas, or to determine if this
kind of interdisciplinary unit is successful in all or only some of the areas of research.
More time would also allow for research to be developed to incorporate not only
qualitative, but also quantitative research practices and data collection.
However, these qualitative results could imply that there was a positive trend in
some key aspects of this Soil Analysis unit. Taken together and triangulating these
results with other knowledge instruments strengthens my argument that students did
successfully meet at least some of the aspects of the research question of this study, and
were able to accomplish this through the use of inquiry learning. Students showed that
they gained knowledge and understanding of the Earth Science and social studies
standards addressed by this unit with increases in mean scores for the questions that
specifically dealt with the direct connection of human impact and the chemical makeup
of the soil, and that the information learned by students could be useful to their
communities. In addition, students’ responses showed that they believed they were more
confident in applying the inquiry skills that they learned for future science classes.
40
In addition to the knowledge and behavior survey, students were asked to respond
to the question: “I learn best when…” Students overwhelmingly responded that they
learn best when “it’s hands-on.” In fact ten out of the twenty eight students put this as
their response. Other responses included “when there is no pressure”, “when I am not
being lectured”, “when teachers bring in new and different ways to learn”, “when I am
having fun”, or “when it is about the real world”. Responses did not show differences in
the pre- and post-surveys. Students continued to know that this type of inquiry lab helped
them to learn. This agreed with the current educational literature and the Michigan and
National science standards, which showed that the best science education for students is
one that incorporates inquiry learning throughout the course.
Student Lab Report Results:
The second knowledge indicator used in this study was the students’ lab reports.
Students were required to turn in written lab reports which included a list of procedures,
the data on all of the locations tested by the entire class, a map of all of the sites tested, a
data table with all of the data from all of the groups in an organized format, and finally a
written conclusion which drew connections between the data from the students’ tests and
the human impact on the individual sites. The lab report was scored based on a numeric
rubric (See Appendix F).
The most important aspect of the lab report was the students’ ability to generate a
step by step list of procedures that was not only complete and detailed, but was also
implemented by the lab group. In addition, students’ data tables were also very important
in the grading rubric. The data table was vital to the inquiry process because it was the
evidence that students would draw on to formulate explanations. Because of the inquiry
41
nature of this lab unit, students’ conclusions were also very important. The students’
conclusions were their explanations that they drew from their evidence found in the data
table. In addition, the students’ conclusions showed their understanding of the Earth
Science and social studies standards that were the foundation to this unit. Finally, student
participation was also vital to the success of this lab unit. With any inquiry lab, the
success or failure depends on the students’ willingness and abilities to participate in every
aspect of the unit. The location data, which included the site information for all of the
students’ sites and the location maps which took the location data and placed them in a
visual format, were important evidence that students drew on to formulate their
explanations in the conclusions.
Data was taken from each student’s lab reports and are as follows:
Table 4: Student Lab Report Findings:
Mean Scores (%) High Student
Low Student
Standard
N = 24
Scores (%)
Scores (%)
Deviation
Procedures
93
100
20
19.5
Location Data
100
100
100
0.0
Location Maps
79
100
20
27
Data Table
97
100
75
14
Conclusions
59
85
10
24.5
Student
82
100
50
18.5
Participation
Students were successful in their participation. The findings are consistent with
the students’ self-descriptions about the learning environments in which they learn best.
When students feel that their educational needs are being met, they participate more fully
42
in the learning process. This was an effective learning tool as part of the lab report
because it is real-world and hands-on.
Students’ procedures were an important success for my class because past science
classes, including this one, have struggled with writing detailed lists of procedures in lab
reports. Although there were some problems with individual procedures, as a class these
procedures were improved. In addition, the hardest aspect of procedures is for students to
follow their own procedures. Students were required to write a list of the procedures
their lab group would follow in order to complete this lab. Often students produce
procedures that are not detailed enough for them to follow in reality. Students, in this
unit, were successful in this aspect because I required them to show me their procedures
before they could move on to the next step in the lab unit. Several lab groups did have
problems with incomplete procedures or ones that were not detailed enough. However,
with my input and suggestions, students were able to make changes to their procedures
before they had to implement them. This allowed for students to write procedures that
were of higher quality than I had observed in the past and were much easier for students
to follow and use.
The data table was also a successful aspect of the students’ lab reports. Students
were asked to write their data on the board as they finished their test results so that all of
the students in the class could see the trends in the chemical results of each soil test. This
was important because it allowed students to draw conclusions about the chemical levels
in the individual soil samples without knowing or doing large amounts of outside
research indicating what normal levels of each chemical in soil samples are. However,
the data table was the most basic part of the written work and was easily accomplished
43
because students simply had to copy all of the data from the board in a chart of their own
making. However, it should be noted that the data table was quite complex, and required
students to keep track of large amounts of data, which for many students was more
difficult than for others.
Location maps were more difficult for students. The maps were produced
through the GPS mapping activity. (See Appendix B) The maps were drawn to include
the extent of the school district including the three school buildings, the sport fields, and
the roads that connect them. The students took GPS readings at a series of sites around
the district (see picture below). They recorded latitude and longitude coordinates and
also UTM coordinates. Students were then instructed to use the UTM coordinates and to
place them on a graph with the x and y axis being the furthest extent of the UTM
coordinates. Students were then instructed
to draw the landmarks and buildings
around and based on the labeled sites.
Then, in the Soil Analysis lab, students
were asked to add the test sites to the map
that was already produced based on the
location data provided by each group. The common problems with these maps were that
students did not always clearly label the buildings and sites. In addition, students did not
always add all of the groups’ location data to their maps. Finally, students often forgot to
label where north was located on the map.
The worst area of the lab reports were the conclusions. From the beginning of
this Earth Science class, it has been common for many of the students to not turn in
44
complete work. Students from this class, who chronically did not turn in work, most
often did not turn in work that required writing in sentence form. This has been a
common problem in this class, especially among the special education students who often
have disabilities that affect their ability to write down their thoughts. Therefore, what
was most often missing in the lab report was the conclusion. It was the only aspect of the
lab that required students to write in complete sentences. During the class discussion,
prior to the students writing their conclusion, students were able to make connections
between the evidence and the human impact of the individual sites. Students were
observed during this discussion to evaluate their explanations and the explanations of
others based on the discussion of their fellow students and the evidence found on the
board. Therefore, I believe that the reason the written conclusions were not the same
caliber of the verbal discussion was that there are many students who simply refused to
do anything that required them to write in sentence form although there was a special
education teacher present to help them formulate their thoughts in written form, they
were given additional time, and my own verbal encouragement with them and their
parents,. Writing still remains to be the most difficult aspect of the inquiry process. This
proves that there is a need to continue to stress writing as part of the science process.
Of the twenty eight students who participated in this unit, two students turned in
their lab reports late and consequently received a reduced grade. Also, four students did
not turn in a lab report at all. This problem is not uncommon when dealing with students
who struggle academically. Even with accommodations, it is very difficult to get written
work from a select few students. Repeated reminders, work with their special education
instructors, and phone calls home were unsuccessful in getting these students to turn in
45
any written work for this lab. This is particularly distressing since they could have
received at least some credit if they had simply copied the data table from the classroom
board where all of the groups had recorded their results, and turned in their already
complete maps from the GPS Mapping activity.
Discussion of Student Work:
Samples of students’ work are useful in determining the success of the research
goals and the use of inquiry in this unit. For procedures, students often attempted to turn
in steps that were incomplete or lacked details. For example, one group had the
procedures for the entire lab in four steps. The steps listed were: 1. Select a site, 2. Take
a soil sample from the site, 3. Test the soil, and 4. Write a conclusion. After explaining
to the student group that this list of steps for procedures was not complete or detailed
enough, the group rewrote their procedures (see picture below). The second time the
group came to me to show me their
procedures, they had basically copied the
list of procedures from the lab unit
instructions. (See Appendix D) I
explained to the group that their
procedures were better and more complete,
but they needed to have what their specific group was going to do and where they
intended to go. I asked the group to pretend that they were going to follow these
directions to the word and do only what was written on the list. I then asked them if they
thought they could complete this lab doing just those things. The group said “no”. I
asked them what they would need to add or change so that they could. That seemed to
46
help the group understand writing procedures. They returned to their tables, and after
some additional time, were able to write a list of procedures that were both complete and
descriptive to their individual group. I had several other groups that went through a
similar process like this to write their procedures.
The location data was not as difficult for students. Students were given a GPS
unit and I walked them through the process of getting latitude/longitude and UTM
coordinates. Students recorded the information on their lab reports. When we returned to
the classroom, students wrote their group’s location data on the board. Students simply
copied the data from the board into an organized chart. For the most part, this was not a
problem for students. However, the most common mistake was from students who forgot
to label the type of coordinates or did not title the chart.
The location map was a compilation of the GPS Lab and the location data from
the Soil Analysis lab. Many students successfully completed an accurate map of the
school district that included the testing sites for each group. This was important because
several students were very discouraged about drawing a map when the class started this
project. Several students told me they “could not draw”, “I can’t draw a map”, or “I
have no idea what to do”. By designing the GPS mapping unit to use UTM coordinates
set up on a graph, students were easily able to place their sites on the graph and draw in
landmarks after the sites were placed on the grid. The most common problems with the
maps were that some students did not label the buildings or landmarks, or did not add all
of the testing sites to their map.
The students’ data tables were very successful. Students were asked to add their
group’s results for each of the soil’s chemical tests to the board as they completed them.
47
I did have several examples of students who wrote the data on the board wrong or with
the wrong units. The interesting thing was that other students caught those mistakes and
asked the groups if that number or label was correct. In most cases, the groups were able
to correct their mistakes, and in one case the original data on the board was correct. This
was a great example of one of the important aspects of inquiry. Students were able to
evaluate their data in the light of other students’ data or questions. The final data tables
were, for the most part, copies of what eventually ended up on the board. The only
problems with students’ data tables were that some lacked units or correct labels and a
few had some issues with neatness. The problems with neatness could have been
improved had I required students to use pencils when they drew them.
Student conclusions were the most difficult aspect of the lab reports. Students
often did not write complete conclusions or did not write conclusions that connected their
data to the human impacts that had affected the soil at their testing sites. One of the
sample conclusions said, “We think our site had been farmed”, and, “In conclusion, the
testing we did show that humans can effect what is in the soil.” Together, there is
nothing wrong with these conclusions; however, these were from two separate
conclusions, and this was the only substance in their conclusion. Both of the students’
examples did not connect specific data from their soil testing to their written conclusion,
and neither of the students connected soil results from other sites with those found at their
individual sites. This was particularly interesting since students were able to accomplish
this and connected evidence from their data to specific human impacts at specific sites
when we discussed our finding as a class. I think because students were able to evaluate
their data based on other students’ verbal input and conclusions, individual student lab
48
groups were better able to verbally make successful conclusions. However, this did not
carry over to their written conclusions. There was clearly a disconnect between what was
discussed in class and what individual students wrote into their conclusions. This was
caused because students did not write enough in science classes, and were often not
required to communicate their thoughts in written form. In addition, the remedial and
special education students would, because of their disabilities, have a more difficult time
communicating in written form. In the future, I would divide the rubric up so that half of
the conclusion points were given based on verbal responses to the conclusions, and the
other half based on written conclusions. This would better evaluate what students
actually learned without disregarding the need for students to communicate in written
form.
The results from the students’ lab reports showed that they were able to connect
the Earth Science objectives to the social studies objectives. This can be seen by the
students’ mean scores on procedures, which showed the students abilities to work with
science processes to generate questions and to propose steps to answer those questions.
These abilities apply to both Michigan science and social studies standards. The location
data and the location maps showed that the students understood how to use information
about location to draw conclusions from. This skill also meets both science and social
studies standards.
Finally, in the students’ lab conclusions, the written scores were not as high as I
would have liked to have seen to show success. However, the students’ discussion in
class indicated that they did understand the connections between the science of the
chemical tests and the human impact on the soil at the individual test sites. The
49
participation scores and the scores of all of the other scores combined can be used
together to show that students engaged in scientific questions which required them to
work with evidence to formulate explanations. They, in turn, evaluated in light of other
students’ explanations when they communicated with each other in class discussion and
as individual groups so that they could justify their own explanations. This is the inquiry
process, and thus meets the research goals set out by this project.
Teacher Observation Results:
Finally, my own observations were used to determine the students’ success and
understanding of the unit’s goals and objectives. On the first day, students where given
the lab instructions and we went over them together in class. Students grouped together
into lab groups of four students each. We then went outside to the first location and I
demonstrated how to use the soil auger to collect a soil sample and separate it into the
two depths that we would be testing. I found that when students were collecting their soil
samples, the first two groups showed signs of being uncomfortable with the collection
procedures. They also had a hard time working together since the collection required all
four students to work to get the sample. One student, when told by his group members
that he could not be “lazy” and would have to help them, said that he had already told
them he was not going to work and would take the “F” instead and sit in the office. I
decided not to say anything to him about the comment. With some pressure from his
fellow students, he was reluctantly working and helping his group collect their samples.
The following day, a member of this group came to me and explained that they felt they
were going to have problems with this individual student during the rest of the lab. I
encouraged them by saying that they handled the problem very well the day before and
50
that, maybe, we could convince this student to participate. Although this problem student
did not work up to his capabilities, he did work, participate, and turn in a lab report. I
believe that this showed success for this individual student and his lab group who were
able to work with him.
Secondly, I found that I needed to
find a way to get the rest of the class to
watch and learn from the groups that were
taking their soil samples (see picture to
right). To help with this, I asked students
to gather around each of the student
groups taking their samples. I reminded students that they would be doing their own
sampling in the near future and needed to watch other groups so that they knew what to
do when it was their group’s turn to take samples. Student groups tended not to be
engaged until it was their group’s turn to collect the sample. I also walked each group
through the usage of the GPS unit. It was much easier this time since the students had
already had practice using the GPS units in the GPS Mapping Lab that the class had
completed several weeks prior to this.
51
At the beginning of the chemical testing part of the Soil Analysis unit, students
were asked to use a series of chemicals to extract the chemical makeup of the soil into a
solution that was used to do the individual tests from. This process required mixing of
chemicals and a filtration process to remove the soil particles from the chemical extract.
Students did very well with this aspect of the lab (see picture below). Each lab group
successfully filtered their soil extracts into
a clean solution. This was not a small
success, since I had a particularly difficult
time getting my soil samples from
Ticonderoga to filter cleanly and had to
repeatedly start over. My biggest concern
going into this lab was that students would not be careful enough to produce a clean
extract. I was very surprised that every group was so successful with this aspect.
Next, the lab groups started testing their soil extract for the specific chemicals
found in soil. Each test had a different set of instructions, lab tools, and chemicals to use.
Students were given the instructions for each test in the lab instructions at the beginning
of the lab unit. (See Appendix D) I had two sets of testing equipment and chemicals for
each test, so I set all of the chemicals and lab wear out in one location and told student
groups that they should check to see what test was available to run and then do that test.
Because of this, students were not able to run through the tests in the order that the
instructions gave. There was some confusion about this at first, but the student groups
caught on to this new procedure very quickly.
52
The last aspect of the chemical tests was that
there was a series of tests that required students to
neutralize their soil extract before they could run the
rest of the tests. Students were asked to add sodium
hydroxide to their solution and test it with pH strips
until the solutions was neutral. Many of the student groups were confused with this
procedure, and I went to each one as they reached that point in the lab and demonstrated
what to do (see picture above). Student lab groups were then able to complete the
chemical tests in the lab.
Finally, the lab groups were asked to record their chemical data on a class data
table on the board. At the end of the chemical tests, I lead the students in a discussion
about the class’s results. Students were able to draw connections between the results of
chemical tests, the individual site locations, and the human impacts at those sites. This
was a very productive time and, educationally, the most important part of the lab.
Classroom management in a lab of this complexity, especially with so many
students who were unfamiliar with lab procedures, was particularly important. Some of
the issues involved with this included
students who were not prepared to
participate in the lab when they came each
day. Typically, students did not have lab
safety glasses, did not want to use their lab
glasses (see picture to the left), or did not
have closed toe shoes. I had three students who did not wear lab appropriate shoes. Two
53
borrowed shoes and the other student sat in the hall for several days. On a separate day, I
talked to her about her shoes. She claimed to not have any other pair. I asked if she
could borrow a pair and she said she could. I think she did not want to participate in this
lab and was using this as an excuse. I had two other students who did not wear
appropriate shoes. I ended up sending them to the office instead of sitting them in the
hall. I had gotten the impression that they liked being in the hall and that is why they
were not bringing shoes. They were not happy about being sent to the office and I did
not have any other problems with students wearing inappropriate shoes in class.
I believe that because these students have never had the experience of a lab that
required certain attire, they did not believe that they would have to wear appropriate
shoes. I also think that it took several days for students to understand that appropriate lab
attire was part of the science process and was just as important as the chemicals, their soil
samples, or the lab directions. These problems lessened as the lab unit progressed and
students became more aware of the importance of lab attire and how it relates to the
inquiry process.
Next, I had one group that was particularly disruptive, doing silly things like
squirting water on each other. I talked to them and told them specifically that this
behavior was not going to be tolerated. I caught one of the students squirting water at
another student and sent him to the hall to wait out the rest of the lab. This student, who
normally would act out to get thrown out of class, was genuinely upset that he was going
to miss the rest of the lab period. I think the point was made for the whole class, and
there were no other problems. Again, the lack of lab units makes this kind of practice
54
even more important because this is part of the process of doing science and something
that this particular group of students had missed.
Even though I planned units and mini inquiry labs in hopes of preparing students
for the Soil Analysis lab, some students still showed signs of being unprepared. Some of
this was due to the turn over of students at Marlette. Many of the students, who had the
biggest problems in this unit, were students who had not been in class since the beginning
of the year, and consequently, had missed some or most of the preparations built into the
class. Once the boundaries had been made clear, and the rest of the groups showed that
they wanted to take this lab seriously, the rest of the students responded positively.
In addition, I had one group of students who went very slowly in comparison to
the rest of the class. I think this group was particularly concerned about making
mistakes, and so they were being very cautious about following directions, which then
put them behind in getting the lab finished. I gave them daily goals to meet, and this
seemed to help them keep on track with the class better. I did observe several groups that
had not listened to directions and made major errors in the set up of the extraction
procedure. These groups had to dump out their work and start over. I think they learned
something about the importance of following directions.
Finally, about halfway through the lab unit, I had one group ask if their test was
going to tell them about what happened in the past. I observed groups making comments
like, “This number makes sense because it was close to the football field”, or “Do you
think we will have more metals since our site is close to the old school building”? This
led me to conclude that the students were beginning to catch on to what the real purpose
of the lab was.
55
Generally, students who followed directions and did their work were successful
with this lab and the write up. The overall attitude of students was positive, and most of
the students showed that they understood the importance of the work they were doing and
realized how it was related to the sites where their samples came from. Although there
were problems with individuals, I feel that this was a positive experience. Students
successfully completed the process of doing science and learning a lot about the chemical
makeup of soil, the impact humans have on that soil, and the many tools and procedures
needed to “do” science in a real-world context.
Summary:
Taken together, the findings show that students could successfully learn through a
thematic unit that was made up of both science and social studies attributes. The results
also showed that the use of interdisciplinary units have the potential to help students learn
in a deeper way. In addition, the data, in combination with current educational literature,
would imply that students can learn better when they are exposed to real world scenarios.
The qualitative evaluation of this data showed positive aspects of implementing science
and social studies standards in a single unit and that, in some areas, students showed that
they understood that these subjects could be interrelated. Finally, triangulation of the
qualitative results from the student surveys, the written lab reports, and my own
observations showed that students made some connections between science and social
studies disciplines and MDE benchmarks in both subject areas through inquiry learning
practices. In addition, these results point out that students are able to learn through
interdisciplinary units when they are able to make connections with the “real world.”
56
However, this data also showed that there were areas in which I could improve in
writing and implementing further thematic units that incorporate inquiry learning and
cross disciplinary standards. It also showed the need for additional research and more
data, including additional student surveys, which could focus on changes between
individual students and on specific student behaviors and knowledge that were not
covered in this study’s survey. This could then be used to draw clear connections
between the use of science and social studies benchmarks, inquiry learning, and student
learning.
57
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to investigate ways of connecting Earth Science
standards to social studies standards. This study used a thematic approach with a view to
enable students to better understand Earth Science content and better prepare them to be
scientifically literate. My goal was to explore ways of connecting Earth Science to social
studies themes in order to help students to better understand the importance of both
disciplines in real-world contexts. This was accomplished by using both Earth Science
and social studies standards and benchmarks from the Michigan Department of
Education.
This instructional unit and the learning objectives it contains has been a part of
my long term goal of improving science and social studies instruction in my classroom
through inquiry and real-world experiences. Therefore, the data and information
gathered through this research project will continue to be used to further improve my
daily instruction and bring about long term learning in my students.
Based on the three knowledge instruments used in this study, the findings show
that students could successfully learn through a thematic unit that was made up of both
science and social studies attributes. The results also showed that the use of
interdisciplinary units have the potential to help students learn in a deeper way. Finally,
the data, in combination with current educational literature, would imply that students can
learn better when they are exposed to real-world scenarios.
The successful use of an interdisciplinary unit was the most important
contribution on this lab unit. The current educational theories along with Michigan
58
Department of Education standards and benchmarks all agree that interdisciplinary units,
like this one, are an important part of student learning and the inquiry process. Putting
these theories into practice, however, is much more difficult. The implementation of
social studies standards into an Earth Science unit was the most important aspect of this
study.
However, this data also showed that there were areas in which I could improve in
writing and implementing further thematic units that incorporate inquiry learning and
cross disciplinary standards. It also showed the need for additional research and more
data, including additional student surveys, which could focus on changes between
individual students and on specific student behaviors and knowledge that were not
covered in this study’s survey. This could then be used to draw clear connections
between the use of science and social studies benchmarks, inquiry learning, and student
learning.
In future years there are changes I would make in order to increase the success of
this unit. First, I would spend more time in preparation and instruction prior to the
beginning of the lab unit. I do not think that it is enough to just tell students that they
need to wear lab attire and expect they will follow through on this expectation. I need to
emphasize the importance of shoes and lab glasses as part of the lab itself that try to
connect those aspects to the process of science. I think one of the ways to accomplish
this is to expect students to wear lab attire for prior labs. If students come to expect that
this is part of doing labs in this class, many of the problems experienced by students,
especially during the first few days, could be eliminated.
59
My assumptions about student knowledge were also important to the success of
this unit. I knew that students were coming into this class with significant deficiencies in
science content and science practice, but I thought that given regular practice in inquiry
labs, students would pick up on the practice of science, and would have a better
understanding of the content. The reality of it, however, was that this did work for some
students, but others needed more than a few months of practice and content, to make
them comfortable performing a major inquiry unit like this Soil Analysis unit.
I think the ultimate solution to most of the problems encountered during this unit
could be reached with practice. The key aspects of this unit were science processes and
how they tied to social studies. If students had previous experiences with science
processes in other science classes, and even social studies classes, this would not have
been such a difficult thing for students to follow. However, practice also has its negative
aspects. One of the key elements of success was that the students felt motivated to learn
because this experience was new or unique. The question, then, becomes whether
motivation to learn would be depleted if the experience was not new or unique. I do not
believe so, because the research, as described in the literature review, also shows that
student motivation is also tied to the ability to connect learning across curriculums and
show how it relates to the real world. All of the knowledge instruments showed that this
was indeed the case with this unit, and so practice would not harm the motivation of
students in completing this activity.
This kind of practice can only come with the cooperation of fellow instructors.
The science and social studies departments need to continue to work towards improving
their curriculums to better meet both the Michigan Science and Social Studies standards,
60
especially where inquiry is concerned. Leadership is vital to the success of this endeavor.
Fellow teachers must lead through example, by motivating their students and thereby
encouraging other education professionals to follow suit. In Marlette, this change has
also been helped by a change in the current teacher contract, which rewards science
teachers who regularly incorporate labs into their instruction. I am hopeful that in time,
students will be better prepared for “doing” science by the time they reach my Earth
Science class.
Finally, with more time, the data from this unit could be expanded to incorporate
quantitative data, which would show with more precision the actual student learning
gains that accompanied this type of interdisciplinary unit. More research and the use of
interdisciplinary units similar to this Soil Analysis unit would be very helpful in
expanding this research to include more quantitative data.
Educational Implications:
This unit could just as easily be used in a social studies class as in a science class,
and I think that proves the interdisciplinary aspect that is at its core. I plan on using this
same unit in a future archeology class, in which students will take their soil results and
make a determination of what they think they might find if they did start a test pit in that
location, or to determine if a test pit is even warranted in that spot.
In conclusion, this unit and study did prove that it is possible to successfully
connect Earth Science standards to social studies standards. This study also determined
that thematic approaches to science and social studies, enabling students to better
understand Earth Science content, better prepare them to be scientifically literate, and
understand some of the social studies standards dealing with the process of science and
61
the importance of humans’ impact on their communities as defined by Michigan’s
Department of Education. In addition, this study showed that connecting Earth Science
to social studies themes helps students to better understand the importance of both
disciplines in real-world contexts. Finally, this study determined that by changing how I
teach science and social studies, I can ensure that my students can learn not only science
content, but also be able to tie it to real world experiences. This, according to MDE and
many leading educational researchers, is the best way of producing scientifically literate
adults.
62
References:
Caine, Renate Nummela, and Geoffery Caine. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching
and the Human Brain. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Connecting Academic Disciplines. (1992). Technological Horizons in Education
Journal, 20(3), S14 – S17. Retrieved from Academic OneFile Database.
DeBoer, George. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another Look at its Historical and
Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-602.
Diamond, Jared. (1999). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New
York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Easley, Linda. (2005). Cemeteries as Science Labs. Science Scope, 29(3), 28-32.
Holton, Gerald. (1996). On the Art of Scientific Imagination. Daedalus, 125(2), 183 –
209.
LaRue, Paul. (2007). Promoting Historic Preservation in the Classroom. Social
Education, 71 (6), 312 – 316.
McComes, William F. (2009). Thinking, Teaching and Learning Science Outside the
Boxes. The Science Teacher, 76(2), 24-28.
Michigan Department of Education. (2008). Michigan Science Standards.
www.mi.gov/documents/science_standards_122080_7.pdf.
Michigan Department of Education. (2008). Michigan Social Studies Standards.
www.mi.gov/documents/social_studies_standards_122084_7.pdf.
Mills, Geoffrey E. (2003). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. Upper
Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Nagel, Paul B. and Richard Earl. (2003). Bringing the Ocean into the Social Studies
Classroom: What can Oceanography do for Sixth through Twelfth Grade Social
Studies. The Social Studies, 94.(6), 257 – 264.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1996). National
Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
63
Perrone, Vito. (1994). How to Engage Students in Learning. Educational Leadership, 51
(5), 11-14.
Peters, Tim, Kathy Schubeck, and Karen Hopkins. (1995). A Thematic Approach:
Theory and Practice at the Aleknagik School. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 633 –
637.
ReSciPE Book. (2006). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.
http://cires.colorado.edu/education/k12/rescipe/collection/inquirystandrads.html.
Ryder, Jim. (2001). Identifying Science Understanding for Functional Scientific
Literacy:Implications for School Science Education. American Educational
Association Annual Meeting.
Woods, Martha P. (1994). Secrets of Lake Phelps. Creswell: Pettigrew State Park.
64
Appendix A
Earth Science: Where is the Copper? Inquiry Activity
Purpose: To determine how to separate copper from other materials
based on their densities.
Materials:







Bag of Soil – (With 10 pieces of copper in it)
Piece of pure copper
Gold Pan
Graduated cylinder
Small beaker
Digital Scale
Tub of Water
Procedure:
1. Determine a method to find the density on the soil.
2. Determine a method to find the density of the copper
3. Find the density of the soil and copper and record their density in
the Lab Report Sheet.
4. Based on the density of the soil and copper and the materials you
have to work with, determine a method for separating the copper
from the soil WITHOUT touching it with your hands!
5. Carry out your plan by separating the 10 pieces of copper from the
soil. The copper can NOT be touched while separating.
6. Fill out the Lab Report Sheet and answer the conclusion questions.
7. Turn in the Lab Report Sheet to Mrs. McElroy
65
Lab Report Sheet:
1. Record your method for determining the density of the soil:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
2. Record your method for determining the density of the copper:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
3. Record the Density of the Soil (g/ml): _________________________
4. Record the Density of Copper (g/ml): _________________________
5. Record your method for separating the copper from the soil. Include
the reason your group chose to use this method.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
6. Out of 10 copper pieces in the soil, how many did you successfully
separate? What was your success rate?_________________________
7. What could your group have done differently or what changes would
you make to improve your success rate?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
8. What did the density of copper have to do with your method of
separation?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
9. How could this separation method be applied in a larger copper
mining industry?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
66
Appendix B
Earth Science: GPS Mapping Activity
Procedure:
1. Walk to several locations around the Marlette Community School
campus.
2. Take GPS readings (UTM and LAT/LONG) at 10 different locations
including any major landmarks.
3. Record the GPS readings below.
4. Back in class, take the UTM coordinates for the 10 sites and map
them onto graph paper.
5. Label the major landmarks and site numbers on your map. Make sure
there is a title and that you have labeled the variables.
6. Turn in your map along with your GPS readings and the following
questions.
Activity Questions:
1. Compare and Contrast UTM coordinates with Latitude and Longitude
readings.
2. How many satellites was the GPS unit using to get readings?
3. How accurate, in feet, was these readings?
4. What kinds of conditions could affect your GPS accuracy?
5. List at least 5 practical things you could use GPS for.
67
GPS Readings:
Site #1
UTM Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Site #2
Site #3
Site #4
Site #5
Site #6
Site #7
Site #8
Site #9
Site #10
Record a short description of each site:
#1: __________________________________________________________
#2:___________________________________________________________
#3:___________________________________________________________
#4:___________________________________________________________
#5:___________________________________________________________
#6:___________________________________________________________
#7:___________________________________________________________
#8:___________________________________________________________
#9:___________________________________________________________
#10:__________________________________________________________
68
Appendix C
Earth Science: Soil Analysis Unit Student Survey
Read through each question and then circle the number that best fits your
opinion or answer to the question. 1 means “No” or “Strongly Disagree”
and 5 means “Yes” or “Strongly Agree.”
1. Social studies and science are related.
1
2
3
4
5
2. Science can help us understand history.
1
2
3
4
5
3. Archaeology should be a science credit.
1
2
3
4
5
4. Labs can help me better understand the real world.
1
2
3
4
5
5. The chemical make-up of soil has to do with what humans have done
in the past.
1
2
3
4
5
6. Farmers can test soil to get better crops.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I can successfully complete a Chemistry lab.
1
2
3
4
5
69
8. I can discover information that will be useful to my community.
1
2
3
4
5
9. I am taking Earth Science because I need the credit.
1
2
3
4
5
10.Science is connected to the “real world.”
1
2
3
4
5
11.Social Studies is connected to the “real world.”
1
2
3
4
5
12.I learn best when…………
70
Appendix D:
Earth Science: Soil Analysis Lab
Purpose: To determine the historical land use of an area using soil analysis
techniques.
Procedure:
1. Investigate the area surrounding the local school district using the
Marlette Quadrangle.
2. Determine a site within walking distance that your group wants to
investigate. Keep in mind the current land use and the likely land use
over the past 150 years.
3. Determine the exact location of your site using a GPS unit. Record
your latitude and longitude and UTM coordinates for your site and
map out its location in relation to the High School building.
4. Determine the types of soil tests your group wants to get data from.
Be sure to keep in mind what information each test can give you about
your soil sample.
5. Take a soil sample from your site and place it in an appropriate
container. Record the site number and depth for each sample.
6. Run the appropriate tests using the directions provided. Be sure to
follow safety and disposal procedures.
7. Record the data on an appropriate data table
8. Share your data with the rest of the class. Compare your data with the
data collected at other sites by your classmates.
9. Make conclusions about the land usage of your site based on your data
and the data of other local sites determined by your classmates.
10.Turn in Lab Report! This should include:
a. Procedures
d. Data Table
b. Location data
e. Conclusion
c. Location map
71
Testing Procedures:
Soil Extraction:
1. Use the 1.0 mL pipet to add 5 mL of Acid Extracting Solution (6361)
to the 100 mL graduated cylinder. Dilute to the 75 mL line with
deionized water. Pour into 100 mL bottle
2. Use the 1 g spoon (0697) to add 4 measures of soil. Add 2.0 mL of
Charcoal Suspension (5638). Cap and shake for 5 minutes.
3. Use funnel and filter paper to filter mixture. Collect the filtrate.
Store and label the filtrate.
Nitrate:
1. Fill the test tube to 2.5 mL line with soil extract. Dilute to 5 mL line
with deionized water.
2. Dilute to 10 mL line with Mixed Acid Reagent (V-6278).
3. Use the 0.1g spoon to add 2 measures of Color Developing Reagent
(V-6281). Cap and mix for one minute. Wait 5 minutes.
4. Invert the sample once to mix. Insert test tube into the Octa-Slide
Viewer. Slide the Nitrite in Soil Octa-Slide Bar into viewer. Match
sample color to a color standard.
Phosphorus:
1. Use a 1.0 mL pipet to add mL of soil extract to a test tube. Dilute to 5
mL line with deionized water.
2. Use of 0.5 mL pipet to add 0.5 mL of VM Phosphate (4410). Cap and
invert several time to mix. Wait 5 minutes.
3. Use the plain pipet to add 2 drops of reducing agent (6505). Cap and
mix. Solution should turn blue in 10 seconds.
72
4. Invert the sample once to mix. Insert test tube into the Octa-Slide
Viewer. Slide the Phosphorus in Soil Octa-Slide Bar into viewer.
Match sample color to a color standard.
Potassium:
1. Use a 1.0 mL pipet to add 2 mL of soil extract to the round tube
(0796)
2. Use a second 1.0 mL pipet to add 2mL of Potassium TPB Solution
(3825). Wait 5 minutes.
3. Dilute to top line with deionized water. Cap and shake to mix.
4. Remove the cap and slowly insert the square tube with the collar. The
square tube will slide up and down through the collar and fill with
liquid.
5. Viewing from above, lower the square tube into the solution until the
black dot on the base can no longer be seen. Hold the round tube at
the top to avoid blocking the light.
6. Read the level of the liquid level in the square tube. Record
Potassium Level.
Aluminum:
1. Use pipet to add 2 drops of soil extract to the large depression on a
spot plate.
2. Add 2 drops of deionized water.
3. Use a clean pipet to add 1 drop of Aluminum Test Solution (5101).
Use a stirring rod to mix. Wait one minute.
4. Match sample color to a color standard on the Aluminum in Soil
Color Chart. Record result.
73
Manganese:
1. Use a transfer pipet to add 10 drops of soil extract to the large
depression on a spot plate.
2. Use the 0.05g spoon to add one measure of Manganese Buffer
Reagent (6310). Mix with a clean stirring rod until the powder
dissolves.
3. Use the other 0.05g spoon to add one measure of Manganese
Periodate Reagent (6311). Mix with a clean stirring rod for 20
seconds.
4. Match the color in the spot plate to a color standard on the Manganese
in Soil Color Chart. Record in Data Table.
5. IMMEDIATELY clean the spot plate to prevent staining.
Neutralization of Soil Filtrate:
1. Add Sodium Hydroxide Solution 15% to the soil filtrate, one drop at a
time, until the pH test paper indicates that the pH is between 6.0 and
7.0.
Iron:
1. Fill the test tube to 5 mL line with neutralized soil extract.
2. Add 5 drops of Iron Reagent #1 (4450)
3. Use the 0.05g spoon to add 1 measure of Iron Reagent #2 (V-4451).
Cap and mix until the powder has dissolved. Wait 5 minutes.
4. Invert the sample once to mix. Insert test tube into the Octa-Slide
Viewer. Slide the Iron in Soil Octa-Slide Bar into viewer. Match
sample color to a color standard
74
Calcium and Magnesium:
1. Fill the round test tube with 2.5 mL of neutralized soil extract. Fill to
the 10 mL line with deionized water.
2. Add 5 drops of Calcium-Magnesium Inhibitor Reagent (3922). Swirl
to mix. Wait 5 minutes.
3. Add 5 drops of Calcium-Magnesium Buffer (5126). Swirl to mix
4. Add 10 drops of CM Indicator Reagent (6522). Swirl to mix. The
solution will turn red.
5. Fill the Direct Reading Titrator with Standard EDTA Reagent (5254).
Insert Titrator tip into the center hole of the test rube cap.
6. While swirling the tube, slowly press the plunger to titrate sample
until color changes from red to blue.
7. Read the result where the plunger tip meets the scale. Multiply by
5.16. Record as Value A
8. Fill the round test tube with 2.5 mL of neutralized soil extract. Dilute
to the 10 mL line with deionized water.
9. Add 2 drops of Inhibitor Solution (9258). Swirl to mix.
10.Add 2 drops of TEA Reagent – Swirl to mix
11.Add 8 drops of Sodium Hydroxide Reagent with Metal Inhibitors
(4259). Swirl to mix.
12.Add 1 Calcium Hardness Indicator Tablet. Cap and swirl until tablet
disintegrates. Solution will turn red.
13.Dill the Direct Reading Titrator with Standard EDTA Reagent (5254).
Insert Titrator tip into the center hole of the test tube cap.
75
14.While swirling the tube, slowly press the plunger to titrate sample
until color changes from red to blue, and does not revert to red for at
least one minute.
15.Read the result where the plunger tip meets the scale. Multiply by
5.16. Record as Value B.
16.Calcium = Value B x 0.4 (ppm)
17.Magnesium = 0.24 (Value A – Value B) (ppm)
Copper:
1. Fill 2 test tubes to the 10mL line with neutralized soil extract.
2. Add 5 drops of Copper Reagent (6446) to one test tube. Cap and mix.
3. Hold both test tubes one-half inch above the white plastic sheet or
paper. The extract with the reagent will appear yellow if copper is
present.
4. Add Copper 2 Reagent (6613) to the second, untreated sample, one
drop at a time, with mixing, until the color of the two samples is the
same. Count the number of drops added.
5. Multiply number of drops of Copper 2 Reagent used in Step 4 by
0.25. Record as ppm Copper.
76
Appendix E
GPS Locations: Ticonderoga Historical Impact Study
These sites are numbered so that the first site is the far Southwest corner, on
the La Chute River and go in order to the last site (#15) being the far
Northeast corner on Lake Champlain near the Light Point. GPS locations
were established using a Garmin Etrex Legend GPS locator with average
accuracies of 20ft.
#1. 43.50.33.38N,
73.23.40.67W
#2. 43.50.35.52N,
73.23.37.19W
#3 43.50.37.51N,
73.23.33.67W
#4 43.50.39.77N,
73.23.30.36W
#5 43.50.41.88N,
73.23.27.13W
#6 43.50.43.76N,
73.23.23.52W
#7 43.50.45.06N,
73.23.19.28W
#8 43.50.46.53N,
73.23.15.02W
#9 43.50.48.19N,
73.23.11.33W
#10 43.50.49.69N,
73.23.07.13W
#11 43.50.50.58N,
73.23.02.92W
#12 43.50.51.14N,
73.22.58.35W
#13 43.50.51.34N,
73.22.53.77W
#14 43.50.52.25N,
73.22.49.52W
#15 43.50.53.42N,
73.22.44.89W
77
Map of GPS Locations: Ticonderoga Historical Impact Study
Photograph from “Google Earth”. See Appendix H for copyright information.
(Bottom Left is Site #1 and Top Right is Site #15 Respectively)
78
Appendix F
Earth Science: Soil Lab Report Rubric
1. Procedures: (Out of 20 pts) _______________
a. Listed all procedures with details:
1
2
3
4
5
b. Listed procedures accurately compared to what the group actually did:
2
4
6
8
10
c. Listed procedures neatly:
1
2
3
4
5
2. Location Data: (Out of 10 pts) __________
a. Listed data in chart form:
1
2
b. Listed group’s location data in UTM and Lat./Long. coordinates:
1
2
3
c. Listed other group’s location data in UTM and Lat./Long. coordinates:
1
2
3
4
5
3. Location Map: (Out of 10 pts) __________
a. Neatness and Accuracy of Map:
2
3
4
1
b. Drew and Labeled landmarks and buildings:
1
2
c. Clearly labeled site locations:
1
2
d. Included variables (UTM Coordinates) on X and Y axis:
1
e. Identified “North” on the map:
1
79
4. Data Table: (Out of 20pts) __________
a. Neatness and accuracy of Data Table
2
4
6
8
10
b. Presented in Chart form:
1
2
c. Included variables in the Data Table:
1
2
3
d. Included Data from all the groups:
1
2
3
4
5
5. Conclusion: (Out of 20 pts) __________
a. Conclusion draws on data found in the Data Table:
1
2
3
4
5
b. Conclusion makes connections to a specific location and test results:
1
2
3
4
5
c. Conclusion describes proposed human land usages at specific sites:
1
2
3
4
5
d. Conclusion written neatly and in complete sentences:
1
2
3
4
5
6. Student Participation: (Out of 20 pts) __________
1
2
3
4
5
b. Student Participation in Chemical Testing:
2
4
6
8
10
c. Student Participation in group discussion and group’s conclusions:
1
2
3
4
5
Total Grade: (Out of 100 pts) _______________
80
Appendix G:
Satellite Photo of Testing Area (Marlette, MI)
Photograph from United States Geological Survey. See Appendix H for copyright
information.
81
Appendix H:
Copyright Usage
1. Google Earth: You can personally use an image from the Google Earth
application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as
long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo
attribution.
2. United States Geological Survey: USGS-authored or produced data and
information are considered to be in the U.S. public domain.
82