Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
How to search for a student’s posts on Moodle:
https://moodle.evergreen.edu/mod/forum/search.php?id=1927
Document1
1
EJ Zita
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
James Parker (done)
James did some good work in this program in fall. He showed interest in some of the material. He
attended most classes, and participated gamely, if sometimes underprepared, in workshops. James
missed much of the homework in the first half of the quarter, completed all in the last half of the quarter,
and struggled on both exams. James worked with classmates on his take-home final, though he signed
an agreement to do it independently. This is a violation of academic honesty.
He showed some understanding of linear and exponential growth, a little understanding of the relationship
between energy and power, and qualitative energy transformations, and poor ability to quantitatively
analyze energy and the environment. James’s Final Survey showed fair to poor learning from seminar
readings and peer research projects. His portfolio was organized and partly complete.
James presented brief reports on sustainable handwarmers for Occupy Wall Street (it appeared that
these may still be in a research stage), and on insects as a form of protein.
James’s seminar team posted brief PIQs, sometimes with his input. James and his research team (JP
and Alex) eventually developed a proposal on grey water recovery. The team had difficulty making the
transition from a research report to a college-level research investigation, and changed their focus after
they learned that an aquaponics facility had already been funded. It could have been interesting for them
to research a question at that facility.
James wrote one essay describing farm co-ops, and another on adaptive capacity as defined in the IPCC.
He is encouraged to take advantage of opportunities to write inquiry-based essays, starting with
questions to which the answer is not already known. A next step would be to learn to synthesize ideas
from diverse texts. James wrote 2 responses to peers’ essays.
James’s teammates asked for more reliability, in conferences and in writing:
“James Parker: A few times he wasn't ready when the team was ready to post PIQ’s and this would
result in late postings. Although I rarely seen him have notes he always had … the readings in his
head and could do his presentations of the material from his memory.”
“I was happy with the quality of his contributions to our PIQ's, when he did them.
When he didn't do them, it would have been appreciated for him to have let [us] know.”
James reported communication difficulties in every evaluation he wrote.
James can benefit from taking more personal responsibility for his learning.
I wish him the best in his future work.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 16
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
2
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Reid Trevarthen
Reid did good work in this program. He attended reliably and participated effectively. He made good
contributions in workshops, seminars, and Wolfson classes. Reid turned in all the homework and did fine
on it. He did well on the midterm and fine on the final. He showed very good understanding of linear and
exponential growth, of the relationship between energy and power, and of qualitative energy
transformations, and good quantitative analysis of energy and the environment. His portfolio was wellorganized and complete.
Reid and his seminar team (Arij and Andrew C.) posted thoughtful PIQs. With his research partner
(Taylor), Reid submitted a proposal for energy-generating bikes in the Campus Recreation Center. Their
proposal was funded – great! Their final presentation was a clear and engaging slidecast, for which Reid
made relevant calculations. He clearly had fun constructing their slidecast, and it was fun to watch.
Reid’s Final Survey showed excellent learning from seminar readings and peer research projects.
As an example of his best writing, Reid chose this excerpt from his first essay:
“If the environmentalist movement is to succeed, it will need an indisputable truth on its side that
remains valid even in the absence of projected dates, specific figures and computer models. The
finite nature of fossil fuels is a fact. It cannot be argued logically that we have an infinite supply, and
the concept of using up a limited amount of anything can be understood by a five-year-old. I believe
this fact should be the focus of the environmental movement if their goal is to captivate the public’s
attention and effect lasting change.”
Reid writes clearly, and proposes a strategy to motivate a public that is not moved by scientific
arguments. That’s a good start. However, we have seen that dwindling supplies of oil motivate
conservation with higher prices, and Hansen makes it clear that cheap coal is a far greater problem, for
there is much more coal available to do damage, for a much longer time than oil will last.
Reid wrote many responses to peers’ essays; they were thoughtful and helpful. Some of Reid’s replies
started substantive online conversations about deeper issues.
Peers valued Reid’s contributions to their teamwork, and he wrote thoughtful evaluations of his
teammates. They wrote: “Working with Reid on team Gridlocked was very interesting. He has a unique
way of looking at things and trying to give them a happy glow. I especially enjoyed working on the IPCC
report in the later part of the quarter with Reid our discussions on the Impacts sections we had were
insightful and clarifying. Reid was always on time and prepared with notes and a positive attitude.” (ABS)
“Reid Trevarthen was an excellent, vibrant, and dependable research partner. He was always willing
to pick up work, or help me understand his calculations. He made all aspects of the research fun.” (TF)
“Reid has been highly reliable all quarter, I don’t think he has missed a single meeting. Reid has
been helpful in creating thoughtful PIQs he has also been an excellent person to work on wolfson
homework with.” (AC)
Reid presented brief reports on bike energy generation and the Keystone Excel Pipeline. His first brief
report launched his team’s successful research proposal. He prepared well for our field trip to the coal
plant, and wrote no insights after the visit.
It was a pleasure to have Reid in this program. I wish him the best in his future work. He is a smart and
capable young man.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 16
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
3
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Taylor Feldman (no essay excerpt)
Taylor did some good work in this program. She was enthusiastic about sharing information from the
Clean Energy Committee (CEC), which we appreciated. She participated actively in some classes and
completed workshops, if not prelabs. Her contributions to peer instruction in Wolfson classes and
seminars (with her teammate, Jaal) were fine (though she was late for one of her team’s presentations).
Taylor turned in most of the homework in the last half of the quarter; sometimes it was fine. She did well
on the midterm and fine on the final. She showed good understanding of linear and exponential growth,
of the relationship between energy and power, of qualitative energy transformations, and of quantitative
analysis of energy and the environment.
Taylor presented a brief report on bike lanes. She prepared for our field trip to the coal plant, and wrote
no insights after the visit.
Taylor and her research teammate submitted a proposal (based on Reid’s brief report) for energygenerating bikes in the Campus Recreation Center. Their proposal was funded by the CEC – great!
Their final presentation was clear and engaging, with calculations by Reid. Taylor’s Final Survey showed
decent learning from seminar readings and peer research projects. Her portfolio was well-organized and
partly complete.
Taylor wrote 2 essays and 2 responses to peers’ essays. Her first essay questioned the ethics of green
marketing. Her second essay questioned the usefulness of scientific measurements of the environment,
such as CO2 levels. She advocated that we simply “walk towards ways to live harmoniously with our
handsome planet instead.” Taylor is encouraged to strengthen her use of analysis and synthesis, and
rely less on rhetoric.
Peers valued Taylor’s contributions to their teamwork, and she wrote thoughtful evaluations of her
teammates. They wrote: “Taylor cares about the subject matter, but I think she wants to tackle the
problems from a [different] vantage point ... She played a pivotal role in our research funding with her
connections through the CEC.” “Taylor Feldman has been reliable when we need to get something done,
and always responds quickly to emails. We had some confusions about when PIQs were supposed to be
posted or not, but we worked well together on the Wolfson sections.”
I wish Taylor good luck in her future work. I encourage her to take personal responsibility for her learning,
and to fully engage in her academics.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 16
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
4
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Clay Showalter
Clay did some good work in this program in fall. He often participated effectively when he was present.
He contributed creatively and intently to seminars and to peer instruction in Wolfson classes. Clay did fair
on the homework that he turned in. He did decent work on both exams (I know that he can do much
better). He showed very good understanding of linear and exponential growth, the relationship between
energy and power, qualitative energy transformations, and good quantitative analysis of energy and the
environment. Clay is good at math, and is a voracious reader. His portfolio was organized and partly
complete. Political activism was Clay’s higher priority this quarter.
Clay and his seminar teammate (Spencer) posted good PIQs, and they facilitated a good seminar. Clay
and his research teammate (Arij) developed a very thoughtful proposal to evaluate Evergreen’s
sustainability with a new metric; they studied several other metrics in the process. Their final presentation
was clear and interesting. Clay’s Final Survey showed good learning from seminar readings and peer
research projects.
As an example of his best writing, Clay chose this excerpt from his week 8 essay:
An examination of history shows a greater willingness of people to participate in the atrocities of a
culture than to oppose them. I imagine a day when humans look back at our generation in much the
same way that some people look back on the slave trade and the Holocaust, asking, “How could so
many people who understood what was happening remain complacent in the face of such atrocities?”
Clay writes passionately, and can synthesize ideas between different texts. His essays were usually
exhortations – in this case, for scientists to “expose the processes that prevent climate change from being
addressed in a sane and responsible manner,” as Dr. James Hansen does valiantly in Storms of my
Grandchildren. A classmate asks – what about the responsibilities of our leaders and citizens? Clay’s
rhetoric may be more effective when it is more specific, appropriately targeted, and supported with
evidence. His final presentation with Arij was a good example of work in that direction.
Clay’s responses to peers’ essays were thoughtful and helpful. The program could have benefited from
hearing more from Clay.
Peers valued Clay’s contributions to their teamwork, and he wrote thoughtful evaluations of his
teammates. They wrote: “I enjoyed working with Clay if only to open up his world. He definitely has a
world view, but thankfully is willing to listen to ideas that test it. In class you can tell at times he is just
waiting to strike with his list of quotes and facts from his series of books. Talking to him, probing and
pushing him to examine his ideas and going deeper was interesting and one of my finest interactions of
the quarter. Clay was always on-time for our meetings and prepared. When we would meet we would do
the big stuff (as in create our broad ideas and themes of our project) and segment the work. I really
enjoyed Clay’s capacity to write, it made my job of editing our work easy.”
“Clay had an awfully full schedule and sometimes missed class, but always showed up to team activities
on time with meticulous notes. Seriously, his notebooks are amazing. He's a very ambitious person, and
posed many big-picture questions as he tied multiple seminar readings together.”
Clay presented a brief report on the climate talks in Durban, and posted a report on climate effects on
amphibians. He prepared PIQs for our field trip to the coal plant, and wrote no insights after the visit.
It was a pleasure to have Clay in this program; I wish he had been fully present and engaged, for he can
be a terrific colleague, and our studies resonate with his values. I wish him the best in his future work,
and would be happy to work with him again. He is a smart and capable young man.
EQUIVALENCIES:
Document1
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 16
5
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
6
EJ Zita
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Spencer McLane-Higginson
Spencer did good work in this program. He attended reliably and participated effectively. He made good
contributions in workshops, seminars, and Wolfson classes. Spencer turned in all his homework and did
fine on most of it. His problem-solving techniques have improved, e.g. explaining his work and using
scientific notation. He did very well on both exams. He showed very good understanding of linear and
exponential growth, the relationship between energy and power, qualitative energy transformations, and
analysis of energy and the environment. His portfolio was well organized and mostly complete.
Spencer and his seminar teammate (Clay) posted good PIQs, and they facilitated a good seminar. With
his research partner (Nicholas), Spencer developed a good proposal for evaluating the solar PV potential
in Olympia. Their final presentation was clear and interesting. Spencer’s Final Survey showed very good
learning from seminar readings and peer research projects.
Spencer presented brief reports on fracking for natural gas (very important) and nano-experimental
control of entropy (very interesting). He prepared PIQs for our field trip to the coal plant, and posted
insights after the visit. We valued his contributions.
As an example of his best writing, Spencer chose this excerpt from his week 7 essay:
“But interest in SRMs [solar radiation management] is clearly growing, and there are certain points we
should make sure to stay conscious of while navigating any upcoming geoengineering debates…
Informed individuals must now see to it that the prospect of SRM’s global cooling doesn’t automatically
overshadow altered and acidified rainfall, depleted ozone, and the other downsides of geoengineering.”
Spencer writes well, and can synthesize ideas between different sources. He used his essays effectively
to explore interesting questions, learning and sharing knowledge. Spencer’s responses to peers’ essays
were very thoughtful and helpful.
Peers valued Spencer’s contributions to their teamwork, and he wrote thoughtful evaluations of his
teammates. They wrote: “All of Spencer's contributions were excellent and it was a pleasure working
with him. He challenged himself and took our group work seriously. When there was something in the text
that he didn't understand we worked together to not only learn it ourselves, but to learn how to best
present the material to the class.”
“Spencer and I divided our work up equally, and I was happy with his contributions. I am glad to have
worked with Spencer and I think the project benifited from his input. He was a reliable teammate.”
It was a pleasure to have Spencer in this program. He is a smart and capable young man. I wish him the
best in his future work.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 16
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
7
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Alexander Day
Alex did some good work in this program in fall. He attended most classes and participated gamely. He
made some good contributions in Wolfson classes and seminars. Alex turned in the homework and often
did fine on it. He missed the second lab. He struggled on the midterm and did fair on the final; Alex
worked with classmates on his take-home final exam, though he signed an agreement to do it
independently. This is a violation of academic honesty.
Alex showed poor understanding of linear and exponential growth, good understanding of the relationship
between energy and power, poor qualitative understanding of energy transformations, and fair
quantitative analysis of energy and the environment. His Final Survey showed fair learning from seminar
readings and peer research projects.
Alex and his teammates (JP and sometimes James) posted brief PIQs. Alex did a good job of facilitating
seminar. Alex and his team eventually developed a proposal on grey water recovery. They had difficulty
making the transition from a research report to a college-level research investigation, and changed their
focus after they learned that an aquaponics facility had already been funded. It could have been
interesting for them to research a question at that facility.
Peers valued Alex’s contributions to their teamwork, and he wrote a thoughtful evaluation. His teammate
wrote: “Alex is a very bright individual who had a lot to contribute to the research process. Although we
struggled with communication errors, he pulled his own weight in research and made a valuable
contribution to the team.”
Alex presented a brief report on riparian health (EPA). He prepared for our field trip to the coal plant, and
wrote no insights after the visit. Alex wrote no essays or responses to peers’ essays. He is encouraged
to take advantage of opportunities to write short inquiry-based essays. A next step would be to learn to
synthesize ideas from diverse texts.
Alex can benefit from taking more responsibility for his learning. He excused his incomplete research
because material was “copyrighted,” for example. I wish him the best in his future work.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 12
(THIS IS REDUCED CREDIT)
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
0 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
8
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Nicholas Acorn
Nicholas did very good work in this program in fall. He attended reliably and participated effectively. He
made good contributions in workshops, seminars, and Wolfson classes. Nicholas turned in all of his
homework and did well on much of it. He did well on the midterm (93%) and above average on the final
(84%). He showed very good understanding of linear and exponential growth, clear understanding of the
relationship between energy and power, very good qualitative understanding of energy transformations,
and good quantitative analysis of energy and the environment. His portfolio was well organized; next
quarter please include reflections.
Nicholas and his seminar partner (Michael) posted good PIQs most weeks. Nicholas and his research
partner (Spencer) developed a good proposal for evaluating the solar PV potential in Olympia. Their final
presentation was clear and interesting. Nicholas’ Final Survey showed good learning from seminar
readings and peer research projects.
As an example of his best writing, Nicholas chose this excerpt from his week 3 essay:
“When the flourishes of fiction are stripped from the body of 2084, a backbone of real science can be
seen. Powell seems to have imagined a fiendish future extrapolated from current scientific predictions
about climate change. However, the 2009 UNEP Compendium on climate science, with its dry, cutting
tone is even more terrifying then the apocalyptic imaginings of 2084.”
Nicholas can write beautifully and effectively, and can skillfully synthesize ideas between different texts.
He must be careful with proofreading and spellchecking. Nicholas’s responses to peers’ essays were
thoughtful, substantive, and helpful.
Peers valued Nicholas’s contributions to their teamwork, and he wrote thoughtful evaluations of his
teammates. They wrote: “Nick was always prepared with his readings for seminar PIQ’s. He was almost
always the first to be ready every time the PIQ’s were due. Nick is the best at asking probing questions at
me and others for the class.”
“Nicholas was an awesome project partner. I'm not sure what's bigger--his growing knowledge base or his
infectious enthusiasm. He was completely reliable and always brought high-quality work.”
Nicholas presented brief reports on how wind farms can slightly warm the climate, and on factors pushing
us closer to irreversible climate change. He prepared PIQs for our field trip to the coal plant, and posted
insights after the visit. We valued his contributions.
It was a great pleasure to have Nicholas in this program. I look forward to continued work with him. I wish
him the best in his future work.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 16
8 cr – Physics of Energy Systems and Introductory Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
9
Final FALL Evaluations – Energy Systems & Climate Change – Fall 2011-12
EJ Zita
Joseph (JP) Powers (done)
JP did some good work in this program in fall. He attended reliably and participated gamely. He made
some good contributions to workshops, seminars, and Wolfson classes. A high point was JP’s peer
instruction in our Electricity section, where he presented a real-life example based in his knowledge from
work in the field. JP turned in a fraction of his homework and did okay on some of it. He struggled on
both the midterm and the final. JP worked with classmates on his take-home final, though he signed an
agreement to do it independently. This is a violation of academic honesty.
JP showed good understanding of the relationship between energy and power, and poor understanding of
linear and exponential growth, qualitative energy transformations, and quantitative analysis of energy and
the environment. His portfolio was organized and partly complete.
JP posted PIQs with his team (Alex and sometimes James), and they facilitated a seminar. JP and his
teammates developed a proposal on grey water recovery. They struggled to make the transition from a
research report to a college-level research investigation, and changed their focus after they learned that
an aquaponics facility had already been funded on campus. It could have been interesting for them to
investigate a question of their own at that facility.
Peers valued JP’s contributions to their teamwork, and he wrote thoughtful evaluations of his teammates.
They wrote: “JP is a very level-headed guy who has a lot direction and useful knowledge from his many
previous professions … He also helped out when it counted. He was able to help us move on from
aquaponics and focus our research on grey water filtration.” “JP was very reliable, brings new insights
and enthusiasm, volunteered to lead seminar.”
As an example of his best writing, JP chose this excerpt from his week 7 essay on the IPCC:
“What you might not know is that one of the only reasons there is still wild salmon to eat in this area
at all is because our government spends millions of dollars a year to farm salmon either in tanks or by
planting eggs in rivers and streams. … While aquaculture is a way to grow a larger population of fish
thereby slowing the destruction of our oceans and waterways, it is true that if not done properly there
are downsides to aquaculture as well. “
JP wrote, as one peer noted, an “opinion piece” that fish farming should be more widely adopted
worldwide. He implied that it is practiced sustainably in India, and focused on overfishing as the major
reason for declining fisheries. Whether or not these are supportable claims, JP should include more
evidence and wider consideration (does climate change play a role in declining fisheries?) A classmate
fairly pointed out that exaggerations (e.g. about long-lining) weaken credibility in the essay. Fish farming
may indeed have great potential, done right. Instead of writing to try to convince, JP is encouraged to use
his essays to explore ideas and evidence, and to organize and develop his understanding. It will be worth
his time. A next step would be to learn to synthesize ideas from diverse texts.
JP wrote one response to an essay.
JP presented a brief report on better lithium batteries. He prepared for our field trip to the coal plant, and
wrote no insights after the visit.
It was a pleasure to discuss farming with JP. He can benefit from taking greater responsibility for his
learning, and taking good advantage of resources. I wish him the best in his future work.
EQUIVALENCIES:
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 14
8 cr – Introductory Energy Systems and Climate Change
4 cr - Research Planning
4 cr - Science Seminar on Climate Change and Sustainability
Document1
10