IMPROVING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF
AND ATTITUDES ABOUT WATER QUALITY, TREATMENT AND
CONSERVATION
By
Victoria L. McPeak
A Master’s Report submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED SCIENCE EDUCATION
Michigan Technological University
2009
Copyright © Victoria L. McPeak 2009
This report, “Improving High School Students’ Knowledge of and Attitudes
About Water Quality, Treatment and Conservation,” is hereby approved in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN APPLIED SCIENCE EDUCATION.
DEPARTMENT or PROGRAM:
Cognitive and Learning Services
Signatures:
Thesis Advisor
________________________________
Dr. Brad Baltensperger
Department Chair
________________________________
Dr. Brad Baltensperger
Date
________________________________
ii
ABSTRACT
By
Victoria L. McPeak
The research that was done for this project was based on the idea that
students’ knowledge of and attitudes about topics related to water would
improve with a new curriculum unit. The students were exposed to topics that
will impact their lives in the future because the demand for water is becoming
an increasing problem, not only through out the United States, but also across
the globe.
The teacher created a week long unit about topics related to water
quality, treatment and conservation as it related to Geoscience. The material
for this unit was something that was not previously taught in Geoscience.
The book that this class uses does not having any information related to this
topic. Therefore, the curriculum came from varying sources and was adapted
by the teacher to meet the classroom needs of the students.
The students were given a pre test prior to instruction during the unit.
After the unit, students were given a post test. The information gathered from
these tests will be used for data to compare if students knowledge and
attitudes changed related to water quality, treatment and conservation. Once
the unit was complete, the students were taken to the local waste water
treatment plant and then given a survey about the value of the trip as it
related to the unit on water.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thank you is extended to the Midland Waste Water
Treatment Plant and all who work there. Especially, Ed Klopf, whose
willingness to help meet the needs of my internship will not be forgotten.
I would also like to thank my husband who encouraged me while
working at my internship and writing this paper. You gave me the inspiration
to keep on going throughout this very long endeavor.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE -Introduction...................................................................1
CHAPTER TWO - Research Questions ...................................................4
CHAPTER THREE - Literature Review ....................................................7
CHAPTER FOUR - Methodology ...........................................................20
CHAPTER FIVE - Analysis and Summary of Data .................................29
CHAPTER SIX - Conclusions.................................................................39
APPENDIX A-1 - Michigan Merit Content Expections ............................47
APPENDIX A-2 - Learner Outcomes for Midland Public Schools...........48
APPENDIX A-3 - Proposed Curriculum OUtline .....................................50
APPENDIX B-1 - Pre Survey..................................................................52
APPENDIX B-2 - Post Survey ................................................................54
APPENDIX B-3 - Quiz ............................................................................57
APPENDIX C 1-8 – Student Handouts....................................................60
APPENDIX D – Student Example ..........................................................83
REFERENCES CITED ...........................................................................85
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Comparison of Pre and Post Survey Attitude Scale Answers……30
Table 2 – Correct Answer Responses from Pre and Post Surveys…………34
Table 3 – Post Survey Attitude Scale Answers……………………….……….36
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Comparison of Pre and Post Survey Responses………………….35
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
WWTP……………………………………………....Waste Water Treatment Plant
H.H. Dow High School………………………….Herbert Henry Dow High School
AAAS…………………American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
NSTA……………………………………National Science Teachers Association
viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In the last twenty years, the United States of America has developed
an education reform policy that is composed of strategies and standards. In
1989, state governments began to support these standards. By 1994, the
National Science Education Standards were established and distributed to
educators throughout the United States. When designing these standards,
the National Research Council’s main goal was that all students should
achieve scientific literacy, which is defined as the knowledge and
understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal
decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic
productivity. Scientific literacy is important because the understanding of
science concepts offers fulfillment and excitement about the natural world.
Another advantage of having a scientifically literate population is the ability to
make difficult decisions about the environment. These decisions can be
made because Americans will have the scientific knowledge to determine
what is best for the environment that we live in (National Research Council,
1996).
The desire to have my students become more scientifically literate was
ignited by my internship at the Midland Waste Water Treatment Plant. This
plant is a Michigan Class A Sewage Treatment Plant. Wastewater operations
are separated into the following areas: Plant Operations, Plant Maintenance,
1
Pump Station Maintenance, Sanitary Sewer Maintenance and Storm Sewer
Maintenance. During the internship I worked in the areas of plant operations,
plant maintenance and pump station maintenance. The plant has six
operators whose primary function is to ensure compliance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. The water is analyzed for
carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (CBOD), Total Suspended Solids
(TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Ammonia Nitrogen (N), Total
Phosphorus (P), Total Residual Chlorine, Total Mercury, Fecal Coliform, pH
and Dissolved Oxygen. Chemicals are added at various stages of treatment
to reduce concentrations of CBOD, TSS, P and also for disinfection of
discharged water (City of Midland Wastewater Treatment Plant Annual
Report, 2005 – 2006). Working with the plant operators, I performed
analytical tasks in the laboratory of the plant. I was also shown some of the
pumping stations through out the city, one of which was forty feet below
ground. If it were not for this internship, I never would have been able to have
this experience.
After this internship experience I decided to make my students more
scientifically literate about issues related to water. I felt that it was important
for my students to have an understanding of the current environment and
natural resource issues. These issues are of on-going importance to consider
with regards to the future of the earth and its inhabitants. Water is critical for
students to understand because we all share the need for this resource.
2
This research study focuses on how students learn about water quality,
treatment and conservation. In order for students to learn about these topics,
I created a curriculum unit, the goals of which came from the Michigan
Content Expectations for Earth Science (Appendix A-1). The learner
outcomes (Appendix A-2) established by Midland Public Schools were also
centered in the study’s focus.
The water quality unit was taught in a class called Geoscience. It is an
accelerated (.3) earth science class taught at Herbert Henry Dow High School
in Midland, Michigan. The accelerated courses are designed to challenge
academically talented students. An accelerated course is given a .3
designation. It earns six tenths (.6) of an additional honor point per credit
hour. An A on a 4 point scale equals a 4.6, for instance. During the year in
which this unit was taught, there were 138 students enrolled in Geoscience
out of a total population of 1543. Of the 138 Geoscience students, I taught 85
in three different sections. Another Geoscience teacher had the remaining 53
students. Each section had approximately 30 students. This course is only
offered to sophomores, juniors and seniors and is two semesters long.
3
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Water quality is an important aspect of everybody’s life. The water that
we drink must be treated before we can use it and many people do not realize
the many steps and processes that are involved to treat water. Prior to my
internship at the Midland WWTP, I took for granted the quality of the water
that I use. After the internship, I realized that the water that I use did not
come automatically, but had undergone many steps and treatments to make it
safe for use. I sensed that my students might have the same misconceptions
that I had. Since the students live in Michigan, they have always had access
to large bodies of fresh water— the Great Lakes. There are many people who
live in the United States that do not have this luxury. I wanted my students to
become aware that they are extremely fortunate to be surrounded by such a
large supply of fresh water.
The purpose of this study is to determine how students’ attitudes and
knowledge about water quality, treatment and conservation issues change as
a result of being taught a week-long unit, which included both classroom and
field experiences. The attitudes of the students were evaluated before and
after the unit. Student knowledge gained from the unit was evaluated by
using a pre and post test.
Three key research questions are examined in this study. The main
research question is: does environmental science education improve
4
students’ understanding of environmental issues? H.H. Dow High School
does not offer an environmental science class. In most science classes,
environmental issues are infused into the curriculum. Since there are a
growing number of environmental issues that our nation is facing, there is a
need for environmental science classes. Environmental issues that students
face include: global climate change, polluted water supplies, alternative
energy resources, overpopulation, waste management and a depletion of
natural resources. With the problems we face today, we are requiring our
youth to be able to make difficult decisions about these issues in the future.
Education about the earth and the issues related to it must begin at the K-12
level with an increased emphasis and higher standards at the middle and high
school level (Bralower, Feiss, & Manduca, 2008).
The second research question is: how do field trips related to the topic
of study effect the students’ learning about the environment? Courses that
teach about the environment often utilize field experiences to help students
observe and fully comprehend natural processes and human impacts on
those processes. Is this an effective route to successful student learning?
Currently, and in the past, the Geoscience classes at H.H. Dow High School
have not had field trips. Research has shown the value of field trips as an
educational experience, in part because field trips provide students with a
multi-sensory learning environment that promotes the engagement of the
student (Farmer, Knapp & Benton, 2007). It has also been established, that
5
students’ attitude about the environment become more positive as they are
exposed to environmental field trips (Ignatiuk, 1978).
The third research question is: how can teachers increase students’
understanding of water-related issues and help them develop an awareness
of the importance of environmental issues? A related area of concern is
students’ attitudes about water quality, treatment and conservation. If
students care and become more informed about this area of the environment,
they might be less likely to cause harm to it. In order to effectively answer
this research question, the successfulness of water-related units must be
determined.
My research is based on an educational belief that students should be
able to transfer what they learn in the classroom to their everyday lives.
Issues related to the environment are popular topics that we hear about in the
media. Many editorials have been written about water pollution, water rights
and access to water. Much of the world’s political agenda focuses on
ecological issues (Brody, 1993). This research must address whether or not
students’ knowledge and attitudes about the environmental issues related to
water change as a result of instructional intervention. My goal is that students,
at the end of this unit, will have the ability to connect what they have learned
and apply it to their everyday lives, allowing them to become better educated
citizens.
6
CHAPTER THREE
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are three main areas that will be discussed in this chapter in
order to explore how to improve students’ knowledge and attitude about water
quality, treatment and conservation. Those areas are: environmental
education, the importance of field trips, and improving student understanding
and attitude about water issues.
Environmental Education
Environmental education can be divided into two main areas-environmental literacy and environmental science education. There have
been many efforts made to create a more environmentally educated
population due to the environmental issues that our world is currently facing.
These efforts will be discussed in the following sections.
Environmental Literacy
The Campaign for Environmental Literacy states, “the test of
environmental literacy is the capacity of an individual to act successfully in
daily life on a broad understanding of how people and societies relate to each
other and to natural systems, and how they might do so sustainably. This
requires sufficient awareness, knowledge, skills, and attitudes in order to
incorporate appropriate environmental considerations into daily decisions
7
about consumption, lifestyle, career, and civics, and to engage in individual
and collective action” (“Campaign for Environmental Literacy,” 2007).
Environmental literacy requires that the public become educated about the
state of our nation and world and this needs to begin in the classroom.
Despite recent science education reform efforts to develop “scientific
literacy for all”, many schools remain unchanged in the way students are
presented with information. Educating students to be scientifically literate
requires the teacher to think in terms of “citizen science” (Roth & Lee, 2003).
This involves the students becoming more involved with their community by
educating them about local environmental issues. When students are
educating their community about environmental issues, they are better able to
make connections and become environmentally literate.
Educators need to realize the importance of environmental literacy
because “our nation’s future relies on a well-educated public to be wise
stewards of the very environment that sustains us, our families and
communities, and future generations” (“Campaign for Environmental
Literacy,” 2007). The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) also
supports using environmental education as a way to create more
environmentally literate students (Edelson, 2007). Having the support from
the NSTA should influence science educators to value the teaching of
environmental education.
8
Environmental Science Education
In 2003, The National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee for
Environmental Research and Education noted that “in the coming decades,
the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex
environmental issues, assess risks, evaluate proposed environmental plans
and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and
global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a
concerted, systematic approach to environmental education” (“National
Environmental Advisory Committee,” 2003). Environmental science
education requires the teacher to be a good steward and citizen by instructing
students about environmental issues. If students learn about the environment
and how to be good stewards of the earth while they are still young, then
some of the environmental issues are more likely to be resolved in the future.
The environmental issues that we face today may be eliminated if we educate
today’s youth about how to be good stewards of the earth.
Environmental science education directly relates to students’ lives.
This generation of students will face a future where there will be stress
between the resources humans use and the environment. The growing
population and the increasing demand for natural resources will put stress on
the Earth’s limited supply of freshwater, fossil fuels and usable land. In the
years to come, the students of today will have to face these issues as
individuals and as communities (Edelson, 2007). In order to prevent
potentially dire consequences, educators need to provide students with an
9
understanding of how the environment and its systems function. This can
help them make the difficult decisions in the future.
According to Farmer et al. (2007), environmental education can be
broken into three phases. In the first phase, students learn about their
connection to the natural world and the principles that determine natural
cycles. Students must have a personal understanding of the environment in
order to form their environmental attitudes and behaviors. In the second
phase, students should be able to synthesize and understand their roles
within the environment. In the third phase students realize that in order for
our life on earth to be sustainable, they must initiate the necessary changes.
If these three phases are taught in the classroom, the students will become
better informed citizens and ready to make the difficult environmental
decisions for the future, perhaps even initiate their parents to become
environmentally literate.
Volk and Cheak (2003), evaluated the impact of an environmental
education program on students, parents, and the community. Their study
evaluated the effects of a program “Investigating and Evaluating
Environmental Issues and Actions” on the island community of Molokai,
Hawaii. The design of the program had students take an in-depth look at
environmental issues in their community, to make data-based decisions about
those issues, and to participate in finding resolutions to those issues. The
findings from this study showed that the environmental education that took
10
place in the classroom spread throughout the community. It engaged local
newspapers, parents, community members, agencies and citizen councils.
While we are asking the youth of today to be prepared to face these
environmental issues in the future, current environmental problems also need
to be addressed (Duvall & Zint, 2007). To help parents and grandparents of
today address these issues, they need to be environmentally educated.
According to Duvall and Zint, a possible way to educate adults is to promote
intergenerational learning. Based on their studies, they identified areas that
contribute to intergenerational learning. Those areas are actively involving
parents in student activities and focusing on local environmental issues.
Environmental education not only prepares students and adults to
make decisions about environmental issues, but it also has been shown to
improve student achievement. Forty schools in Florida that were involved
with a program called Environment as an Integrating Context showed
improvement in standardized test scores (Monroe, Randall & Crisp, 2001).
This program focused on using environmental education lessons in
mathematics, reading, and writing to help meet Florida’s state curriculum
standards. Programs that target environmental education can renew student
interest in learning and reinforce the concepts and skills that are measured in
state achievement tests.
While environmental education should be taught in every school,
studies show that the U.S. public has an environmental literacy gap that is
increasing. Two-thirds of the public fail a basic environmental quiz while
11
eighty-eight percent fail a basic energy quiz (“Campaign for Environmental
Literacy,” 2007). According to the National Survey in Mathematics and
Science Education, between the years of 1993 and 2000, the percentage of
high schools teaching environmental science increased from twenty-four
percent to thirty-nine percent (Smith, Banilower, & McMahon, 2002). Only
twelve states have a requirement for environmental education. The state of
Michigan is not one of those. If we want today’s youth to understand the
environment and the issues related to it, more states will need to include
environmental education into their required curriculum.
Water Resource Education
The sub-area of environmental education that is most relevant to this
study is water resource education. In a research review, it was noted that
“students learn a few basic natural, social science and resource concepts in
the elementary grades relevant to current water resource issues and there
was relatively little further assimilation of new concepts or differentiation of
existing concepts as students progressed through the grades” (Brody, 1994).
As students progress through the grades they hold onto their views of waterrelated natural phenomena that they learned through experience or
instruction from elementary school. It is important for teachers to help high
school students expand their understanding beyond what they had learned in
elementary school and the way to do this is to provide opportunities for them
to make meaningful connections. Water resource education provides a way
12
for students to make connections to the real world and also correct any
misconceptions that they have gathered since elementary school.
One misconception that students have is that water is a limitless
supply. Therefore, students need to become educated on the management of
water quality and quantity since it will be a top agenda for the nation (Brody,
1994). Students also need to be educated on ways that they can conserve
water in areas that experience severe droughts. Since students are both
water consumers and future civic leaders, they must be aware of the issues
related to water use and become involved in creating solutions for the
problem (Hall, 2008). To help prepare students, science teachers should
incorporate water resource education into their curriculum.
Importance of Field Trips
Many teachers have long felt that field trips can increase student
learning and engagement with subject matter. However, the effectiveness of
a field trip as a learning tool depends upon how the teacher incorporates the
experience into the instructional unit (Kisiel, 2006). The field trip is a very
complex and expensive activity. In order to make it meaningful, it is important
that it be a valuable learning experience. A well designed field trip serves to
supplement curriculum and build basic science process skills (DeFina, 2006).
The field trip should be planned as an essential part of the curriculum and not
an isolated activity (Orion & Hofstein, 1991). It is important that teachers are
aware of how to make field trips meaningful.
13
In studying the importance of a field trip, the short-term and long-term
effects should be evaluated. A study conducted by Prokop, Tuncer, &
Kvasnicak (2007), evaluated the short-term effects of a field trip on students’
knowledge and attitude toward biology. Students’ knowledge and attitudes
were evaluated using pre and post-tests. The study showed that a short-term
effect of the field trip was an improvement in the students’ attitude toward and
knowledge about biology. The results of this study should encourage
teachers to consider field trips as an important part of science education.
Sibthorp and Knapp (1998), evaluated the short-term and long-term
effects of a field trip. In this study, elementary age students were taken to a
nature park. The students were given surveys one month and eighteen
months after the completion of the field trip. The results from the surveys
showed that memories from the field trip were nonspecific and dissociated
from specific information given by the nature park guide. The researchers
concluded that “while very few of the surveys contained specific references to
what was learned about nature, many contained references to songs sung
and games that were played.” This supports the idea that activities involving
multiple sensations are more memorable for students. Although this study did
not show a definitive improvement in knowledge learned from the field trip, it
did show that the students gained a positive attitude about the experience at
the nature park.
In another study, the long-term effects on ecological and environmental
knowledge and attitude development were investigated. Elementary age
14
students were taken on a field trip to the Great Smokey Mountains National
Park. Interviews were conducted one year after the field trip to explore the
students’ long-term memory recollections of the experience. Several of the
students retained long-term environmental and ecological content and an
increase in pro-environmental attitude. Since the study was small in scope,
the authors suggest a need for further inquiry into the long-term effects of
environmental education field trips (Farmer et al., 2007).
Another important factor that affects the importance of field trip is the
duration of the event. The influence of the amount of time spent in field trip
activities on student attitude toward science and the environment was
investigated (Ignatiuk, 1978). The study was conducted with 34 different
schools. The duration of the field trips varied from the non-treatment group
(no field trip) to the groups receiving some amount of treatment (1/2 – 14
days of field trip activities). This study revealed that students’ attitudes
toward science and certain environmental concepts were significantly more
positive after they had been exposed to at least 2.5 days of field trip activities.
In order to determine if field trips are essential and worthwhile
expenditures, a study was conducted to determine the effects of field trips on
the retention of geography concepts. The results from the study showed that
field trip participants learned and remembered more than those who did not
participate in the field trip. The research from these studies show that “welldesigned field trips can lead to new learning, reinforce what has already been
learned in school and aid in the retention of information. We do not even
15
have to mention how enjoyable field trips are to defend their place in the
curriculum and budget (Berliner, 1985)”. It is up to the teachers to make the
experience valuable for the students and achieve the maximum amount of
educational results that will justify the cost of the field trip (Orion & Hofsein,
1991). To do this, teachers need to connect the field trip with curriculum
content. This will require teachers to “plan interesting activities before,
during, and after the field trip itself to encourage students to hypothesize,
compare, analyze, synthesize, create, and reflect on their experience” (“The
Clearing House”, 2004). Even though there may be budget constraints,
teachers should make every effort to incorporate field trips into their
curriculum due to the valuable experience that it provides for students.
Improving Student Understanding and Attitude
About Water Issues
To help students become better stewards of the earth, teachers can
help them to be aware of how they contribute to the problems the earth is
facing in regards to water pollution and conservation. Tracking the amount of
personal water use is an activity that allows students to become more aware
of water conservation. Not only do they become more aware of water
conservation, but it also involves practicing measurements and conversions
(Hall, 2008). According to Hall, “this real-life problem will motivate students to
develop an appreciation for water resources and hopefully, the motivation to
become involved in solutions. Most importantly, students might consider if
16
the cause of drought is related to current life choices.” Using their records on
the amount of water that they used, they become more aware of the water
they waste and are more likely to practice water conservation in the future.
Other studies have also incorporated water conservation. The Jordan
Water Conservation Education Project measured the impact of a water
conservation curriculum. This group examined the effect of recommending
water conservation at the household level. It also looked at the impact of
using interactive teaching methods, such as hands-on, experimental, and
activity based approaches, to promote conservation behaviors among
students and their families (Middlestadt et al., 2001). The results of the study
indicated that students who were exposed to the water conservation
curriculum showed an increase in knowledge about the topic and performed
the recommended behaviors more frequently than students who were not
exposed to the curriculum.
This study also mentioned some of the theoretical challenges of
environmental curricula. One of those challenges is that general awareness
of environmental issues does not always lead to environmentally responsible
behavior. In order to change or maintain the behavior, the teacher must not
only provide the knowledge of the environmental issues, but also the
strategies and actions the students should take in order to correct the issues.
The results of the study done by the Jordan Water Conservation Education
Project indicate that efforts that focus on recommending and informing
17
students how to carry out specific actions can be an effective way to
encourage environmentally responsible behavior (Middlestadt et al., 2001).
Knowledge of water conservation is a very important aspect of being a
well-educated citizen. An organization that tries to promote water
conservation is Project WET (Water Education for Teachers). There mission
is to “reach children, parents, educators, and communities of the world with
water education” (Project WET, 2008). Project WET offers many activities,
resources, and workshops for educators across the nation. The goal of
Project WET is to provide our future water stewards of the earth with an
appreciation of the importance of conserving and protecting our water
resources (Strnisa, 2002). The activities that Project WET provides are
designed to incorporate water conservation education into science, social
studies and other areas of academics. They are also meant to provide a
memorable and fun learning experience for students so that they are more
likely to practice water conservation in the future.
Most research, on Project WET has not adequately studied the
program’s effectiveness in improving student learning (D’Agostino, 2007). A
recent study designed to measure the effectiveness of the Project WET used
a partitioned treatment design. The design incorporated two groups of
classrooms that experienced different topics from Project WET and
consequently served as each other’s comparison group. The results from this
study showed that “students learned more about water concepts specific to
their particular topic, but the effects were not large” (D’Agostino, 2007).
18
Nevertheless, authors still recommend Project WET to serve in educating
citizens and future citizens about water resources.
19
CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY
Overview
In order to improve my students’ knowledge and attitude about water
quality, treatment and conservation, I created and implemented a unit based
on those issues. This unit on water had several student learning objectives.
One objective was to describe water quality, treatment and conservation.
Another objective was to understand how to conserve water by recording the
amount they used on a daily basis. The last objective was to apply the
concepts of water treatment to a real world experience. Students were taken
on a field trip to give them a first-hand experience of wastewater treatment.
The experience allowed them to visualize what they had previously learned in
class and apply it to the real world. These learning objectives were evaluated
by giving an assessment that had students demonstrate that they could
describe water quality, water treatment, methods of conserving water, and
apply them to the real world. The assessment consisted of students
answering multiple choice and short answer questions to evaluate the
knowledge that they had learned from the unit.
The water quality, treatment and conservation unit extended through
six school days with one additional day for the field trip. The unit took place in
the second semester of the course, following the unit on physical and
chemical weathering. This new unit helped prepare students for the
20
subsequent unit on surface and ground water.
The expectations that influenced this unit were the Michigan Content
Expectations for Earth Science including students should be able to critique
solutions to problems, given solutions criteria and scientific constraints (E1.2f)
while being able to analyze how science and society interact from a historical,
political, economic or social perspective (E1.2k). Furthermore, students
should be able to analyze the interactions between the major systems that
make up the Earth (E2.1B), thus being able to analyze the interactions
between the four Earth systems in an attempt to explain how the impact of
human activities on the environment can be understood (E2.4B). All four of
these expectations and designator codes are listed in Appendix A-1.
This unit consisted of formal classroom instruction where students
were given guided note sheets and were to be completed during the lecture.
One day of instruction included a PowerPoint presentation with pictures taken
from the Midland Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Instructional Methods
My instructional approach was to provide students with a variety of
learning opportunities that consisted of writing assignments, lecture notes,
current articles, an informational video, and real-world applications. Since the
textbook for the Geoscience class did not supply material for this unit,
different resources were used such as articles and web sites.
21
I used multiple writing assignments to allow for students to express
their prior knowledge of the topic and to assess the knowledge that they
acquired from the unit. One of the writing assignments was designed to have
them describe the water cycle from the perspective of a water droplet that
passes through it. They needed to use appropriate science terms in their
writing. The science content was corrected for accuracy (Appendix C-4). For
an example of a student’s story see Appendix D-1.
Another writing assignment consisted of the students reading three
current articles about water issues and then writing an opinion paper using
those articles as references. “Dying for a Drink of Clean Water”, by Jan
Eliasson and Susan Blumenthal (2005), gave students a global view of water,
with issues related to poor water quality and the lack of fresh water in other
parts of the world. A second article, “Nor Any Drop to Drink”, from The
Economist (2007), gave the students a better view of what is happening in our
nation in regards to water shortages. “A Nation’s Growing Thirst Threatens a
Great Lakes Water War” by Jim Lynch (2008), was about the issues related to
freshwater that affect the states surrounding the Great Lakes. After students
read the three articles, they were asked to answer questions related to the
articles (Appendix C-6). After answering the questions, they were given a
writing assignment that required them to form an opinion about the issues
discussed in the articles. They were required to answer the question: Do you
think that the Great Lakes water should be diverted or shared with other
locations of the nation that need it? The paper was required to be one to two
22
pages in length. In order to receive full points, the students needed to
support their opinion with facts and quotes from all three articles.
Journal writings were also used throughout the unit. They were
presented as daily openers and students were instructed to record their
responses in their notebooks. The journal prompts included the water cycle,
past and present water conditions, and wastewater components (Appendix C1).
A video called, Living on a Drop…a Global View of Water, was shown
to the students. It focused on water shortages and water quality across the
globe and provided students the opportunity to see how important water is
world wide (Scandinavian Communications, 1999). Students were given a
worksheet with questions related to the video (Appendix C-3).
Students also had a hands-on experience that involved them keeping a
log of the amount of water that they used for a three day period (Appendix C5). At the end of the unit, they discussed and compared their results in small
groups. Besides discussing their results, they also looked at ways that they
could possibly decrease the amount of water that they used on a daily basis.
To see the class variation, a scale was drawn from 0 to 200 gallons on the
board. The students were instructed to record their average on the scale.
This allowed the students to see how they compared with the rest of the
class.
Another hands-on experience for the students was a field trip to the
Midland WWTP. The goal for this field trip was to provide the students with a
23
real world application of topics they learned in the classroom. Before the field
trip the students were given a handout with questions relating to their
experience (Appendix C-8). During the field trip, students were given the
opportunity to observe the importance of a wastewater treatment plant,
because, without it, our water would be extremely polluted. After discussing
the processes involved in the treatment, witnessing the processes in action
provided visual learners a better understanding of the complexities of the
process.
Student learning was assessed using a quiz at the end of the unit
(Appendix B-3). It included multiple choice, true and false, fill in the blanks,
and short answer questions. The assessment varied in question type in an
effort to check for understanding and retention of conceptual knowledge and
also assess higher order thinking. The pre and post surveys created to
measure students’ attitudes toward water quality, treatment, and conservation
were not graded.
Research Plan
The goal of this project is to determine how students’ attitudes and
knowledge about water quality, treatment and conservation change as a
result of targeted instruction and an integrated field trip. Two aspects of
learning were examined in this study. The attitudes of the students were
surveyed before and after the unit. I anticipated that as students learned
more about the topic through the information that they gathered from the unit,
24
their attitudes would become more positive about the topic. Data from the
surveys was tabulated and pre and post survey responses were compared. I
also assessed students’ knowledge about the topic by conducting a pre and
post survey of the information. The data were tabulated and the pre and post
survey responses related to the content were compared.
The first phase of the project took place at the Midland WWTP from
September to December 2007. My primary task as an intern was to follow the
job requirements of the plant operators. Operators performed safety checks
through out the plant, maintained the pump stations in the city, and performed
various analytical tests on the water and sludge samples in the laboratory.
During this phase I developed research questions and reviewed related
literature.
Phase two, December 2007 through January 2008, included the
research and development of the water curriculum for my Geoscience
classes. Near the end of my internship I communicated with the plant
operators about the curriculum that I created. I also discussed with the plant
operator the details of the treatment plant field trip.
The third phase, February 2008, involved the implementation of the
new curriculum and the collection of data. Instruction took one week; data
were collected before and after the unit. Phase four, involved the analysis of
the data collected from the pre and post surveys.
In April 2008, two months after the unit was taught, the students went
on the field trip to the Midland WWTP. Having the field trip as an isolated
25
activity after the unit was not my intention for this curriculum, however,
requests for field trips are not always immediately granted, due to funding. A
delay of the field trip was unavoidable.
Pre Survey
To begin the unit, students were asked questions to determine their
attitudes about topics related to water (Appendix B-1). These attitude related
questions dealt with topics related to the importance of water conservation,
human impact on water, water pollution, water treatment, applications of
science, and field trips.
Prior knowledge about the topic was also evaluated, as part of this pretest. Students were instructed to attempt all the questions even if the
response given was only a guess. Students were surveyed on their
knowledge of U.S. water consumption, wastewater treatment terminology,
and Midland’s source of drinking water.
Assessment and Post Survey
On the last day of the unit, the students were given a post-unit survey
that evaluated their attitudes and knowledge gained about the topic. Students
were told that the post survey would not be graded, but only used as a
comparison with the pre-unit survey (Appendix B-2). They were also given a
quiz which assessed the knowledge gained about water quality, treatment
and conservation (Appendix B-3). The quiz varied in question format. It
consisted of fourteen completion format questions. These questions
26
contained important vocabulary terms, such as point source and non-point
source pollution. I expected my students to have an understanding of these
vocabulary terms by the end of the unit. Another set of questions involved the
students labeling a diagram. The expectation that I had was that they should
understand the different steps to the hydrologic cycle. Five questions were
matching and related to the steps of water treatment. The students were
given a definition of the process and they needed to know the correct name
for that process. Eleven questions were multiple choice and related to waste
water treatment. There were many steps to waste water treatment, therefore
offering students some possible answers gave them the chance to better
process the questions. Six questions were short answer. I expected my
students to be able to elaborate on topics such as humans polluting water
and the conservation of water. For the short answer questions, students
were asked to either: list, describe or explain their answers in order to
receive full credit. The quiz was worth sixty-five points.
Besides the formal assessment, I also assessed their writing
assignments. I evaluated the opinion paper based on whether or not the
students were able to support their opinion with facts that they learned from
the articles that they read. Their opinions did not have to be correct, but only
supported with facts. Another writing assignment that was assessed was
their stories of the water droplets life cycle. In order to receive full points,
students needed to use the correct terminology for the different stages the
water droplet experiences during the water cycle.
27
Conclusion
The purpose of this unit was to improve students’ knowledge and
attitude about water quality, treatment and conservation. Since this unit was
only 5 days in length, I had to use different methods to evaluate learning by
my students. A pre and post-unit survey was used to measure their attitudes
about the topics. Writing assignments were used as assessment since there
was not a great deal of information about the topics in the students’
textbooks. The quiz was used as a formal assessment to evaluate their
knowledge about the topic.
28
CHAPTER FIVE
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF DATA
Overview
The purpose of teaching this unit was to improve the knowledge of and
attitudes about water quality, treatment and conservation on the part of high
school students. The evaluating tools used to assess this study included a
pre survey, post survey, and unit quiz, producing immediate feedback about
short- term retention. The pre survey responses were compared with those
from the post survey. Other evaluating tools included several writing
assignments, which allowed students to elaborate on their knowledge of the
topic. These evaluating tools aided me in assessing the three learning
objectives of this unit. Those objectives included: describe water quality,
treatment and conservation, understand how to conserve water, and apply
the concepts of water treatment to a real world experience
Also important in the evaluation were the thoughts and opinions of the
students involved in the study. These comments were captured through their
responses to the field trip after completion of the unit. The students were
instructed to describe what they liked, what they disliked, and what they
would suggest for improvement.
29
Importance of Environment Education
An over-arching concern that I had was whether environmental
education is important. Environmental education is an area that is no longer
emphasized in curriculum standards. This type of curriculum creates good
stewards of the Earth and citizens who are prepared to make difficult
decisions about keeping the environment intact. Through teaching this unit, I
wanted the students to understand the importance of preserving our
environment.
To evaluate whether or not students feelings related to the
environment changed, questions were asked before and after the unit. Table
1 compares pre and post survey responses. Data were collected from the
students by using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
Table 1 - Comparison of Pre and Post Survey Rating Scale Answers
n = 77
Question Posed
I think conserving
water is important
Humans have very
little impact on the
water cycle
It doesn’t matter what
I put down the drain,
because eventually it
will get treated
Average rating for pre
survey response
3.31
Average rating for
post survey response
3.64
1.51
1.36
1.88
1.82
These three responses show that students had very strong attitudes
before the unit was taught. With the post survey responses, there is an
overall modest improvement in the students’ feelings about environmental
30
issues related to water. Through teaching this environmental education unit
on water quality, treatment and conservation, not only did students show
more interest in the topic, they realized they have an impact on the
environment. With this new found interest and knowledge, students will
hopefully take what they learned and apply it to their everyday lives.
Effect of a Field Trip on Student Learning
Some literature points out that a field trip involves a tremendous
amount of planning and is a costly activity. Therefore it should be a valuable
learning experience in order to justify the effort and expense. To ensure this,
a field trip should be an integral part of the curriculum and not an isolated
activity. My intention was for the field trip to the Midland WWTP take place
while the unit was taught. After doing the research on field trips and reading
what other educators had written about the topic, I knew that to be a valuable
experience it needed to take place during the unit.
The field trip did not take place until two months after the unit was
taught because the school did not accept my request in a timely manner. It
took the administrators several months to find the money in the budget to
cover the expense of the field trip, so it ended up being an isolated activity,
contrary to my intention.
Before the field trip students were given a handout to prepare their
thoughts and to help keep them focused throughout the tour. The students
31
were instructed to list questions to ask the tour guide. The remaining
questions on the handout were to be answered after the field trip.
The questions asked were not based on a ratings scale. Instead, they
were written response answers. The following is a summary of the
information and not calculated data. Sixty-one students returned their
responses for a grade based on completion. One question asked the
students to describe three things that they found most interesting about the
field trip. The most common response to this question was their interest in
the size of the facility. Another common response to this question was that
they were surprised by the amount of steps the water goes through to be
treated. I also had several students who were surprised by the amount of
science that was involved with treating water.
I also asked the students if the experience would influence what they
put down the drain. Twenty-seven of the sixty-one students said that this
experience would influence what they put down the drain. One particular
student said, “It really makes me think about what I put down the drain.
Normally, I wouldn’t think about it but seeing all of the processes it goes
through makes you think of the time it takes.”
Fifty-eight of the sixty-one students said that field trips are a valuable
experience. One student commented, “We get to actually see it instead of
just reading about it.” Another student commented, “Actually seeing what
happens helps you to absorb the information.” In most responses there was
some mention of field trips providing a visual and hands-on experience.
32
Another question was if this field trip should take place again next year.
Fifty-two of the students said that this trip should take place again. One
student commented, “Yes, because it is very interesting and something
people would never think of doing on their own time.” Another student
commented, “I would because it’s a good one time experience and shows us
real life things about what we learned.” A few students commented that this
field trip should not take place again because, “it smells bad.”
I also asked the students for suggestions on what should be changed
for next year. Most of the students mentioned that the field trip should “take
place when we are studying it.” Students realized that having a field trip take
place as an isolated activity was not ideal. There realization of this fact
related to the literature that I read about field trips.
Content and Attitude Improvement about Environmental Issues
The purpose of this unit was to have students improve in their
knowledge of content and attitude related to water quality, treatment and
conservation. To evaluate the knowledge acquired from this unit, pre and
post surveys were administered to students. Table 2 compares pre and post
survey responses. The questions dealt with content from the unit specifically
dealing with water treatment. Figure 1 shows a graphical view of the same
data.
33
Table 2 - Correct Responses from Pre and Post Surveys
n = 77
Question Posed
How much water do you
think the average person
in the U.S. uses in one
day?
The drinking water in
Midland comes from…
The water that gets
treated by the Waste
Water Treatment Plant in
Midland empties into…
The water that enters the
WWTP is called…
The water that leaves the
WWTP is called…
The biological solids that
remain from the treatment
process of the water at the
WWTP can’t be used for
anything else and are sent
to the landfill.
Answer
150 gallons
Correct
responses
for pre
survey
(%)
36
Correct
responses
for post
survey
(%)
88
Lake Huron
26
94
Tittabawassee
River
40
72
Influent
47
91
Effluent
49
88
False
52
74
34
Figure 1 – Comparison of Pre and Post Survey Responses
n = 77
Percentage of students
Correct Responses for Pre and Post Survey
Questions
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
Question
5
6
Pre Survey
Post Survey
Comparison of pre and post survey questions shows that fewer than
50% of the students knew the content prior to the unit. However, after the
unit was taught, more students were able to answer the questions correctly.
Students’ knowledge of water treatment improved considerably as a result of
the unit on water quality. What cannot be determined is whether this gain in
content is enduring or just short-term.
As a result of this unit, nearly all students (94%) knew that their
drinking water came from Lake Huron. This is a large improvement from the
26% of students who knew this prior to the unit. Students acquired this
knowledge from an overhead that was shown in class that traced the path of
the water that comes into the Midland Water Treatment Plant. There was
only a modest gain in correct responses that involved the reuse of biological
35
solids. I think that if the field trip had taken place before the post survey was
given this number would have been larger.
The post survey also contained questions designed to provide a better
understanding of how much the students valued what they learned from this
unit. This survey was given after the unit quiz and prior to the field trip. Table
3 shows the average rating of responses for these questions.
Table 3 - Post Survey Rating Scale Answers
n = 77
Question Posed
I enjoyed seeing
different ways
science can be
applied in everyday
situations
I think that going to
visit the waste
water treatment
plant would be a
valuable
experience
I think that this unit
was valuable and
important for
becoming a more
informed citizen
I think that this unit
was interesting and
would like to learn
more about it
Strongly
disagree
4%
Somewhat
disagree
24%
Somewhat
agree
55%
Strongly
agree
17%
5%
9%
40%
46%
0%
6%
60%
33%
8%
28%
51%
13%
Seventy-two percent of the students surveyed either somewhat agreed
or strongly agreed that they enjoyed seeing real world applications of science.
Students were shown the real world application of conserving the water that
36
they use and also the science behind waste water treatment. I think that if the
field trip had taken place prior to this survey being given that there would be a
larger percentage of students who agree with the statement. Both of these
areas mentioned are areas of concern for the future of our environment.
Eighty-six percent of the students either somewhat agreed or strongly
agreed that going on a field trip would be a valuable experience. Students
were most likely basing their responses on prior experiences with field trips
since they had not yet taken the field trip to the Midland WWTP. It is evident
from their responses, that their prior experiences with field trips were valuable
to them.
Ninety-four percent of students either somewhat agreed or strongly
agreed that they saw the value of this unit in becoming a more informed
citizen. Of the students surveyed, not one strongly disagreed with the
statement. This statement, more than any other, shows the need for an
environmental education program in schools. Students will be able to use the
information gained to become a more educated citizen.
Sixty-four percent of the students agreed that the unit was interesting
and that they would like to learn more. About thirty-six percent disagreed with
this statement. These results prove that there is a desire on the students’ part
to learn and understand more about environmental education.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of this unit was based on the data that I collected
and the learning objectives that I established. After this unit, I wanted my
37
students to be able to describe water quality, treatment and conservation.
Several questions helped me to establish if this objective was met for the unit.
After the unit, eighty-eight percent of students understood how much water
the average person consumes in one day. In terms of water quality and
treatment, they also improved in their understanding of the influent, effluent
and the recycling of biological solids.
Another learning objective that was established for this unit was that
students would understand how to conserve water by recording the amount
they used on a daily basis. They performed this task during a three day
period of the unit. After this activity they discussed methods that could be
used to conserve the amount of water that is used on a daily basis. Their
attitudes about water conservation improved slightly after the unit.
The third objective was to apply the concepts of water treatment to a
real world experience. This objective was incorporated into a field trip to the
Midland WWTP. In the student surveys that I collected after the field trip,
ninety-five percent of the students saw the value in the field trip as a learning
experience. Approximately forty-four percent of them said that the field trip
would have an influence on what they put down the drains in the future.
Many students also commented in an open ended question that they were
surprised by the size of the facility and the amount of processes that the
water must go through in order to be released back into the river.
38
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this study was to improve students’ knowledge of and
attitudes about water quality, treatment and conservation. Based on the data
collected for this unit, students showed an improvement in these areas.
Since the population of the world continues to increase, there is an increasing
demand for fresh water. This means that it is very important that students
become more knowledgeable about water conservation and treatment.
Teaching this unit was valuable for my students to become well-informed
citizens. It is my hope that what they learned in this unit will help them to
make wise choices about water in the future.
Prior to conducting this study, I had several research questions. One
of those was about the importance of environmental education in the
classroom. A substantial amount of literature indicates that students need to
be educated about environmental issues that they may face as adults.
Michigan is one of many states that do not require environmental education.
Therefore, it is the task of science teachers in Michigan to infuse
environmental education into the curriculum.
My students’ responses showed an improvement in their attitudes
about environmental issues related to water. After this unit on water quality,
treatment and conservation, my students showed more interest in the topic.
They also became more aware of the impact they have on the environment.
39
With the knowledge they learned from this unit, students will hopefully apply it
to their everyday lives by making well informed decisions related to the
environment.
One of my research questions related to the effect of field trips on
student learning. I believe that students should be able to transfer what they
learn in the classroom to their everyday lives. The media present many
issues related to water. It was my intention that what students learned from
this unit on water could be useful for them in their lives. With the field trip to
the WWTP, students were able to transfer what they learned in the classroom
to their everyday lives. A majority of students thought the field trip was a
valuable learning experience. The field trip allowed students the opportunity
to see a real world application of a topic that they had studied. Approximately
half of the students said that the field trip would have an influence on what
they put down the drain in the future. They also mentioned that the field trip
should have taken place when the unit was taught. This coincides with the
literature that I reviewed about field trips not being used as an isolated
activity. When a field trip is infused into the unit it provides a more valuable
learning experience. The students realized this and thought that this would
have been an area of improvement for the future.
The third research question related to increasing students’
understanding of and attitudes about environmental issues. After collecting
data from their correct answer responses, I learned that students had very
little prior knowledge about the topic. There is no other science class in the
40
district that teaches the objectives of this unit on water quality, treatment and
conservation. Therefore, this unit provided students new and valuable
information.
After teaching this unit and collecting data from their post survey
responses, conclusions have been drawn that students showed improvement
in their knowledge about water quality, treatment and conservation. In every
question that was asked about the topic, the number of correct responses
increased.
Besides evaluating the knowledge that they had gained from the unit, I
also wanted to evaluate their attitudes about the topics. Before the unit was
taught, the pre survey attitude scale responses indicated that they tended to
care only somewhat about the topics. After the unit, their attitude scale
responses leaned more to the strongly agree side. As a result of this unit,
students’ attitudes and knowledge showed improvement after only one week.
It is reasonable to conclude that students’ attitudes and knowledge about
environmental education would increase greatly with more time devoted
towards it.
The most straightforward way to improve this unit would be to increase
the time devoted to its topics. The Geoscience curriculum is very rigorous for
the district. We have a set number of days in which to cover the content
expectations of the State of Michigan. Therefore, this unit could only be a
week long since there are no direct content expectations related to it. It would
have been ideal to have the unit one week longer, so that more hands-on
41
experiences could have been used. There were several activities in the
literature review section of this paper that could have been used in this unit if
more time could have been spent.
There are a couple of possible solutions for the lack of time for this
unit. One possible solution is to teach this material throughout the entire year
by infusing it into other units. For example, in the chemistry unit of
Geoscience, I could talk about water quality and the different analytical tests
that are performed on the water in order to ensure that it is treated properly to
be released back into the environment. Another possible solution is to talk
with the other science teachers in the building and try to have them infuse this
material into their curriculum. For example, the biology teachers could talk
about water quality and its effects on the environment when they study
ecology.
I could have also improved the type of questions that I asked. The
majority of the questions were factual recall and definitions. I should have
asked more critical analysis and higher order thinking questions. By doing
this I would have seen a more varied sample of student responses that would
have had a wider range of answers than the factual recall. It would have
allowed me to assess how well the students had understood the content that
was presented to them. It can be easy to memorize the answers to factual
recall questions, but higher order thinking questions would allow me to see
the level at which the students were grasping the concepts. An example of a
question I would include, if I were to do this unit again, would be “Can just one
42
person conserving water make an impact in their community? Why or why
not? Explain your answer.” This question will force the students to apply
concepts that were taught throughout the unit and it will make them analyze
the ability that each individual has on water conservation and consumption.
If I would have increased the number of higher order thinking questions
I asked, I could have limited the number of topics that I covered in the unit.
Therefore, I would have been able to delve deeper into fewer topics. As
science teachers we are often forced to teach a wide array of topics in order
to meet the many content expectations that are required. This hinders our
ability to present quality information because the quantity of information is
forced upon us. While it is important to meet the content expectations, I must
balance my curriculum to cover certain areas more intensively and this unit
could be a good example of that. As I noted before, this unit has no direct
content expectations, but I believe this information is still important for
students.
Another area of improvement is the timing of the field trip to the
Midland WWTP. Having the field trip take place two months after the unit was
not the most ideal placement for such an experience. One student mentioned
in their field trip handout, “Have the field trip before the water chapter test. It
would help them study and have more interest in the topic.” Also, the field trip
handout did not contain attitude scale questions. This made it very hard to
describe the data quantitatively. I should have made attitude scale questions
43
along with the completed response questions. For this reason, the data
collected from the field trip was only qualitative.
Field trips can be costly for school districts and in order to avoid
possible problems there are some alternate solutions. One solution would be
to have the students take a virtual tour of the plant instead of traveling to the
site for a field trip. I could use pictures that I had taken from the plant and
create a virtual trip for them to take in the school’s computer lab. Another
possible solution would be to have a guest speaker from the plant come to
the classroom. These examples could solve the problem of funding and take
place during the unit.
Even though the alternatives I listed above are certainly viable, I
believe that every possible effort should be made to take the students on the
field trip. A virtual field trip showing pictures is a very good way to present all
of the information and display the different processes that take place at the
plant. However, students are not able to fully appreciate the complexities of
what is going on. Pictures and videos cannot do justice to the size and
intricacies of what happens at the plant. The information gained on a field trip
will be retained for a lifetime, whereas a virtual trip may only be retained for
the length of the school year.
The same can be said for a guest speaker. A guest speaker would be
able to paint a vivid picture of what happens at the plant and be able to
describe different plant operations in depth. Once again I would argue that
this would not be as beneficial as a field trip. A guest speaker is a lecture
44
coming from a source other than the teacher. I have already included a
handful of lectures within this unit. Even though the students would like to
hear from someone new, the information will not be retained as long as a firsthand experience.
I have listed these alternate opportunities for use as a last resort. I
have consistently shown the importance of field trips throughout this study
and I believe that every option should be exhausted before eliminating this
crucial experience from the unit.
Improvements could also be made in the number of questions related
to the content of the unit on the pre and post survey. Many of the questions
only related to water treatment. The surveys were lacking in questions
related to water quality and conservation. This made it hard to compare the
information from pre and post surveys because there were so few questions
about the topic. I could have also asked more critical thinking questions. The
questions that I asked were mainly recall questions which do not assess
higher order thinking.
Finally, since this was the first time this unit was taught, there were no
data from previous years. Therefore, I could not compare the amount of
knowledge learned to other years. The data could only be compared to what
the students knew before the unit.
Based on my research, the students’ knowledge of and attitudes about
water quality, treatment and conservation showed improvements which prove
that environmental education can help improve student understanding of such
45
topics. Overall, the knowledge they gained about water issues around the
world challenged them to think critically about what could happen in the
future. Hopefully, the students learned to value the environment after this
unit. After all, these students are our future, and the decisions they make
based on their values will dictate what happens to our environment.
46
APPENDIX A-1
Michigan Merit Content Expectations for Earth Science
That Relate to The Water Quality, Treatment and Conservation Unit
of .3 Geoscience
The student will:
•
Critique solutions to problems, given solutions criteria and scientific
constraints (E1.2f)
•
Analyze how science and society interact from a historical, political,
economic or social perspective (E1.2k)
•
Analyze the interactions between the major systems (geosphere,
atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere) that make up the Earth (E2.1B)
•
Explain how the impact of human activities on the environment (e.g.,
deforestation, air pollution, coral reef destruction) can be understood
through analysis of interactions between the four Earth systems
(E2.4B)
47
APPENDIX A-2
Learner Outcomes for Midland Public Schools
Knowledgeable Person
a. Acquires and integrates critical information necessary for success as a
lifelong learner
b. Effectively utilizes strategies and skills necessary for success as a
productive member of society
Complex Thinker
a. Examines issues and situations and develops a reasoned response
b. Selects from a variety of complex reasoning strategies and uses them
effectively. Strategies may include the following:
classifying, comparison, constructing support, decision making, error analysis,
experimental inquiry, extending, invention,
investigation, problem solving, structural analysis, supported deduction,
supported induction, systems analysis
Cooperative Learner
a. Works with others to achieve learning
b. Demonstrates effective interpersonal skill.
c. Assesses and monitors personal contribution to group
d. Uses expertise of others to extend and refine own learning
Effective Communicator
a. Actively listens to others
b. Expresses ideas clearly
c. Effectively communicates with diverse audiences
d. Effectively communicates through a variety of mediums
e. Effectively communicates for a variety of purposes
Ethical Learner
a. Makes decisions that balance self-interest with consideration for others
b. Fairly represents own work and work of others
c. Credits work of others
Information Processor
a. Skillfully uses a variety of information gathering techniques and resources
to locate information
b. Effectively interprets and synthesizes information
c. Accurately assesses value of information for a given situation
48
Self-Reliant Learner
a. Initiates learning.
b. Exercises independent judgment
c. Perseveres to accomplish goals
d. Seeks to improve performance
49
APPENDIX A-3
Day One: Water Cycle
1. Journal – Draw a diagram of the water cycle. Include labels for
each step in the cycle.
2. Notes: The Water Cycle and Humans Impact on the Cycle
3. Type 1 writing: Pretend you are a droplet of water. You are going to
describe your life cycle to a brand new water droplet in training.
Be specific about what this droplet in training will experience.
4. Homework Assignment: Keep a log of how much water you use
through out the week at your house.
Day Two: Water Treatment
1. Journal: Imagine you were alive 100 years ago. Describe what it
would have been like for you to have fresh drinking water.
Where would you have gotten it from?
How much would you have been able to use on a day to day basis?
2. Notes: Water Treatment
• Where do we get our fresh water in Midland
• How is the water treated before we can drink it
3. Articles:
•
•
“Dying for a Drink of Clean Water”
“Nor Any Drop to Drink”
“A Nation’s Growing Thirst Threatens A Great Lakes
Water War”
Answer questions for each article
Write an Opinion Paper
Day Three: Wastewater Treatment
1. Journal - Brainstorm everything that might go down the drain at your
house
2. Notes: Waste Water Treatment
• What is in the water that gets treated
• Preliminary Treatment (grit/screening) – sample
50
•
•
Primary Treatment (sludge settling/biological activity) –
sample
Chemical/Secondary Treatment ( trickling filters, chlorine,
ferric chloride)
3. Slide show of Waste Water Treatment Plant
4. Homework Assignment: Continue water usage log
Day Four: Living on a Drop – video
1. Show video
2. Students will complete video guide
3. Homework assignment: Continue water usage log
Day Five: Home Water Audit
1. Students will gather their water usage logs
2. Students will share results with others.
• How much variation was there in the classroom?
3. Review with students why it is important to conserve water.
Brainstorm how students could use less water. What behaviors or
equipment would help them reduce water consumption in their homes?
4. Have students complete the post-assessment (survey)
Day Six: Assessment
Students will be given a post survey and then a quiz over the unit.
Optional Day: Field Trip to Waste Water Treatment Plant
Students will visit the local waste water treatment plant. They will be
given a 90 minute tour of the facility.
51
APPENDIX B-1
Pre Survey - Water Quality, Treatment & Conservation
Name_____________________________________Date____________
1. Does the water that you use at your home go into a septic tank to be
treated?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Not sure
2. Does the water that you use at your home go into the city sewer system?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Not sure
3. How much water do you think the average person in the U.S. uses in one
day?
(a) 50 gallons
(b) 100 gallons
(c) 150 gallons
(d) 300
gallons
4. The drinking water in Midland comes from…
(a) Tittabawassee River
(b) Saginaw Bay
(c) Lake Michigan
(d) Lake Huron
5. The water that gets treated by the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
in Midland empties into
(a) Saginaw Bay
(b) Saginaw River
(c) Tittabawassee River
(d) Water Treatment Plant
6. The water that enters the WWTP is called
(a) Effluent
(b) Influent (c) Primary
(d) Secondary
7. The water that leaves the WWTP is called
(a) Effluent
(b) Influent (c) Primary
(d) Secondary
8. What is waste water comprised of? (you may circle more than one)
(a) water used in the home (b) waste produced by the human body
(c) precipitation
(d) water used in an industry
(e) water used on your lawn
(f) septic tank water
9. What is storm water comprised of? (you may circle more than one)
(a) rain (precipitation)water
(b) street runoff
(c) water from shower drain
(d) water from flushing toilets
(e) water from eave troughs
(f) water used on your lawn
52
10. The WWTP in Midland treats the water through which processes
(you may circle more than one)
(a) pretreatment
(b) primary
(c) chemical
(d) tertiary
11. The biological solids (sewer solids) that remain from the treatment
process of the water at the WWTP can’t be used for anything else and are
sent to the landfill.
True
False
Use the scale below to answer the following questions:
1 – strongly disagree
2 – somewhat disagree
3 – somewhat agree
4 – strongly agree
I think conserving water is important (circle below).
1
2
3
4
Humans have very little impact on the water cycle.
1
2
3
4
It doesn’t matter what I put down the drain, because eventually it will get
treated.
1
2
3
4
Waste water treatment is something I know very little about.
1
2
3
4
Water treatment and purification is something that I am interested.
1
2
3
4
Waste water treatment is something that I am interested in.
1
2
3
4
I enjoy seeing different ways science can be applied in everyday situations.
1
2
3
4
I think field trips are a valuable learning experience.
1
2
3
4
53
APPENDIX B-2













 




 














 





 
 




 
 






























 



54










 











































































55















































56
APPENDIX B-3
57
58
59
APPENDIX C-1
JOURNAL PROMPTS
A. Draw a diagram of the water cycle. Include labels for each step in the
cycle.
B. Imagine you were alive 100 years ago. Describe what it would have been
like for you to have fresh drinking water. Where would you have found fresh
water? How much would you have been able to use on a day to day basis?
C. Brainstorm everything that might go down the drain at your house.
60
APPENDIX C-2
61
62

• 

o 

o 

• 



• 




•
•
•
•









•


•



•


 
 

 


63










 














• 



















64










•


•
•
•
•
•













•





65













•
•
•







•

•


•


•


66
•


•


































67


•
•






•
•
•
•









•
•
•










•
•
•








•

 
68
 



•
•
•
•












•
•







•
•
•
•
•
•
•















69

•




•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•













•
•



o 

o 


70
APPENDIX C-3





































71







































72
APPENDIX C-4




























73
APPENDIX C-5
Type 2 Writing: Rubric
Requirements:
•
At least 1 page in length
_____/ 1 pt
•
Skip lines
_____/ 1 pt
•
Underline science terms
_____/ 4 pts
•
Accurately described different phases of the water cycle _____/ 4 pts
Total
74
_____/10pts
APPENDIX C-6














































 





































75






































76
APPENDIX C-7




































77








• 
• 



• 

• 
78
APPENDIX C-8




































79














































80






































81
APPENDIX C-9



































82
APPENDIX D
83
84
REFERENCES CITED
Berliner, David. (1985). The field trip: Frill or essential? Instructor. 94.9: 1415.
Bralower, T.J., Feiss, P.G., & Manduca, C.A. (2008). Preparing a new
generation of citizens to face earth’s future. Liberal Education. 94.2:
20-23.
Brody, Michael J. (1993 April). Student understanding of water and water
resources: a review of the literature. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Campaign for Environmental Literacy. (2007). Retrieved June 6, 2008, from
http://www.fundee.org/campaigns/nclb/brief2b.htm.
City of Midland Wastewater Treatment Plant. Annual Report 2005-2006.
Available from:
http://www.midland-mi.org/government/departments/utilities/
wastewater2006.pdf
D’Agostino, J.V., Schwartz, K.L., Cimetta, A.D., & Welsh, M.E. (2007). Using
a partitioned treatment design to examine the effect of project wet.
The Journal of Environmental Education. 38.4: 43-50.
DeFina, Anthony V. (2006). Building science process skills. Science
Teacher. 73.1. 36-41.
Duvall, J. & Zint, M. (2007). A review of research on the effectiveness of
environmental education in promoting intergenerational learning. The
Journal of Environmental Education. 38.4: 14-24.
Edelson, Daniel C. (2007). Environmental science for all? Considering
environmental science for inclusion in the high school core curriculum.
Science Educator. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4049/is_200704/ai_n19433147
Elder, J. (2007). Background: Why is environmental education important.
Retrieved June 6, 2008, from
http://www.fundee.org/campaigns/nclb/brief2b.htm.
85
Eliasson, J. & Blumenthal, S. (2005, September 20). Dying for a drink of
clean water. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/
AR2005091901295.html
Engineering Active and Effective Field Trips (2004). The Clearing House,
77.4: 160-163.
Erdogan, I. (2006). Real science, real scientists: Students’ experiments with
natural and artificial wastewater treatment in the classroom. Science
Activities 43.1. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from
http://library.lib.mtu.edu:2062/images/WSPL/wsppdf1/HTML/00749/A8
T37/DSV.HTM
Farmer, J., Knapp, D., & Benton, G.M. (2007). An elementary school
environmental education field trip: long-term effects on ecological and
environmental knowledge and attitude development. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 38.3: 33-42.
Hall, R. (2008). Water-use awareness. Science Scope, 31.7. Retrieved
June 6, 2008, from http:// 0-find.galegroup.com.elibrary.mel.org:
80/itx/start.do?prodlid+AONE
Ignatiuk, Gerald. (March 1978). Influence of the amount of time spent in field
trip activities on student attitude toward science and the environment.
S.S.T.A. Research Centre Report No. 49, Regina, Saskatchewan,
Canada.
Kisiel, J. (2006). Making field trips work. The Science Teacher, 73. 46-48.
Lynch, J. (2008, January 7). A nation’s growing thirst threatens a Great
Lakes water war. The Detroit News. Retrieved from:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/METRO
/801070366
Middlestadt, S., Grieser, M., Hernandez, O., Tubaishat, K., Sanchack, J.,
Southwell, B. & Schwartz, R. (2001). Turning minds on and faucets
off: Water conservation education in jordanian schools. Journal of
Environmental Education 32.2. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from
http://0-find.galegroup.com.elibrary.mel.org:80/itx/start.do?
prodld=AONE
Midland Public Schools. Annual Report 2006-2007. Available from:
http://www.mps.k12.mi.us
86
Monroe, M.C., Randall. J., & Crisp, V. Improving student achievement with
environmental education. FOR87. Gainesville: University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 2001.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/DLN. Retrieved June 6, 2008.
National Environmental Education Advisory Council, Report to Congress,
September 2003.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Noel, A.M. (2007). Elements of a winning field trip. Kappa Delta Pi Record.
44.1. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from
http://library.lib.mtu.edu:2062/images/WSPL/wsppdf1/HTML/05886/ZH
GPI/HFD.HTM
Nor any drop to drink (2007, December 6). The Economist. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_i
d=10259055
Orion, N. & Hofsein, A. (1991 April) Factors which influence learning ability
during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
Project WET. (2008). Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://www.projectwet.org/
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasnicak, R. (2007). Short-term effects of field
programme on students’ knowledge and attitude toward biology: A
Slovak experience. Journal of science education and technology.
16.3: 247-255.
Reaching your limits. (1995). Science Activities 31.4. Retrieved June 6,
2008, from http://0-find.galegroup.com/elibrary.mel.org:80/itx/start/do
?prodld=AONE
Roth, W.M. & Lee, Stuart. Science education as/for participation in the
community. Science Education, 88 (2), 263-291.
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10113
Sibthorp, Jim & Knapp, Doug. (1998 January). Evaluating short term and
long term retention of experiences associated with an interpretive
school field trip. Report presented at the Coalition for Education in the
Outdoors Research Symposium, Bradford Woods, IN.
87
Skogstrom, J.M. (1999). Living on a Drop…a Global View of Water
[VHS Tape]. (Available from Slingshot Networks, Washington D.C.).
Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R., McMahon, K.C., Weiss, I.R. (2002). The
national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill,
NC: 27514
Sparking water. (1995). Science Activites 31.4. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from
http://0-find.galegroup.com/elibrary.mel.org:80/itx/start/do
?prodld=AONE
Strnisa, D. (2002) Let’s get web. New York State Conservationist 57.3.
Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://0-find.galegroup.com.elibrary.
mel.org:80/itx/start.do?prodld=AONE
Volk, T.l. & Cheak, M.J. (2003) The effects of an environmental education
program on students, parents and community. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 34.4: 12-25.
88