Mentored Teaching Project
Philip Grabowski, Ph.D. Candidate in Community Sustainability
Course: CSUS 200 sec 003 “Introduction to Sustainability” Fall 2014
Mentor: Dr. Matt Raven
1. Teaching and Learning Goal:
In this mentored teaching project I explored the following learning goal: to develop students’ skills in
identifying and empathizing with diverse perspectives on environmental issues which ultimately stem
from differences in worldview.
One of the course objectives for Introduction to Sustainability (CSUS 200) is for students to be able to
“identify individual worldviews as they relate to sustainability and their implications for individual
actions.” The idea is that in order to effectively carry out engaged science on wicked problems with high
value conflicts, sustainability professionals need the skill of identifying other perspectives on issues and
considering empathetically how and why rational and caring people may decide to have opposing
perspectives on the same issue. With that skill sustainability professionals will be better able to facilitate
dialogue among those with diverse perspectives and guide a process of deliberation on the best way
forward.
2. Teaching Question:
The broad question is: How can I best develop students’ ability to discern multiple perspectives on an
issue that they are interested in?
The specific question is: How will self-selection into groups, low-risk writing, and peer review of writing
affect students’ ability to discern multiple perspectives and refrain from focusing on persuading others
to adopt their perspective?
The rationale for these questions stem from my previous teaching experience (ACR 202) where students
wrote an issue paper with three perspectives and facilitated a deliberative dialogue on their issue.
While this exercise was effective for facilitating learning about the process of facilitating deliberation my
assessment of the experience was that it was lacking in achieving the teaching goal described above.
One of the reasons I believe this happened was because students felt compelled to choose the three
perspectives quickly in order to get the assignment done and because I put them into groups based on
what I thought they were interested in.
3. Classroom Practice:
In order to answer the specific teaching question above I adapted the Policy Position Paper assignment
used in CSUS 200 in the spring by Dr. Raven to be more similar to the deliberative dialogue project I had
used in ACR 202. The details are as follows:
Policy Position Paper and Discussion. You will join a group to analyze policy options to address an issue
that you care about that is relevant to this class.
Part 1: Start by initiating a discussion thread on D2L with three paragraphs: 1) briefly describe an issue
you want to focus on 2) describe why you feel it is important 3) describe the challenges you see in
resolving it (Due September 16). There is no need to do research for this – just share your perspective.
Respond to at least three of your classmates’ posts that are related or identical to your issue. Form
yourselves into groups of 3 or 4 based on similar issues (even if you have dissimilar perspectives on the
issue). Groups should be finalized by September 25.
Part 2: As a group you will develop a paper that outlines the three most important policy positions on
that issue. Post a concept of your paper by October 2 and respond to the concepts of three of the other
groups. A full draft of the paper (10 pages) is due October 21 and will be reviewed by another group.
Your group will also review another group’s paper and return it to them by November 11. You will revise
your paper as needed and submit the final version by November 20.
Part 3: You will also prepare to lead a portion of the class in a discussion on the issue for half of a class
period. That portion of the class will read your paper and you will read their papers when it is their turn
to lead the discussion.
The policy paper and discussion is a way to practice skills in identifying different perspectives on issues
and deliberating on the way forward through dialogue. Your group should not be trying to persuade
others to adopt a particular policy position but facilitating a discussion about how to move forward given
the different perspectives and values on the issue. The paper is worth 100 points and the facilitation of
the discussion 50 points. (The discussions will be in class on November 25, December 2 and December 4).
In addition to the worldview objective, this assignment contributes to several other course objectives
including:
1. Identify key themes and principles in sustainability development
2. Apply a variety of critical thinking, analysis and research skills to evaluate the credibility of
sustainability policy positions and scientific arguments.
4. Improve decision-making capabilities within the context of sustainability.
6. Develop team leadership skills within groups to advance change within communities.
7. Use information technologies in their formal and non-formal learning.
4. Assessment Technique:
In order to assess progress in students’ ability to identify and empathize with diverse perspectives on
environmental issues that they care about I carried out qualitative interviews with select students
before they posted their initial paper concept and at the end of the semester. In addition I assessed the
learning of all students by comparing their initial posts where they describe their perspective with their
final paper and facilitation of discussion. I am comparing the overall results with those observed in my
previous class (ACR 202) that had a similar assignment but without self-selection into groups, low-risk
writing assignments or peer-review.
The interview guides are attached as artifact 1 (see rationale below) on Phil Grabowski’s MSU website
This project was approved as exempt by IRB (IRB# x14-906e)
5. Summary of the results:
Qualitative data from select students
Student 1: From overwhelmed to well informed
Jill was initially interested in “how we’re going to feed the world without overwhelming the planet” and
ended up leading a group of four students to analyze the pros and cons of GMOs. Her group explored
GMOs from three perspectives – 1) those who believe the current regulations are adequate, 2) those
who want to prohibit GMOs because of health concerns and 3) those who want tighter regulations on
GMOs (including possibly prohibiting them) because of environmental problems.
Jill said she was interested in using this assignment to help her look into the overwhelming amount of
information on GMOs, some of which she was receiving from a sustainable agriculture course that she
was taking concurrently. Jill’s interest in agriculture comes in part from her mother, who grew up on a
farm, and from her own experiences gardening around her family home.
In the initial interview Jill said that her own opinions were leaning towards the first position – that the
current regulations are adequate, though she had concerns with the vague wording. She said that
people should not implicitly trust government regulations but need to scrutinize them. She was also
sympathetic towards the third perspective of environmental concern because she knew that while
GMOs could decrease pesticide use they could also result in increased herbicide use. She was not
sympathetic with those concerned about GMOs for health reasons.
In the final interview Jill explained that the assignment developed and changed her perspective on
GMOs. She said that previously she was always shifting her opinion on the issue but now that she took
the time to look into reliable sources she has made up her mind. She felt like she could now confidently
say that GMOs were not generally all that bad but she also learned that they were not as useful for
eliminating world hunger as some proponents seem to argue.
Surprisingly Jill said that she had become less tolerant of those with extreme perspectives on GMOs now
that she had researched them for herself. She explained that she felt impatient with people who had
not thought critically about the issue but were just repeating what their favorite celebrities had said.
She may even have been referring to someone in her group who was anti-GMO. She pointed out that
the different opinions within her group helped her learn to see others’ perspectives.
Jill found the assignment useful for developing her thinking as well as helpful for her classmates who
participated in the discussion led by her group. She explained that many of them said they appreciated
the discussion because it was a topic they had not learned much about. Jill’s main recommendation for
improving the assignment was to start earlier in the semester so as to have more time.
Student 2: From opinionated to nuanced
Shawn’s initial post about global warming included the statement that “carbon dioxide is a main
greenhouse gas and is given off by mainly automobiles and coal-powered plants”. He ended up being
part of a group that explored nuclear, wind and solar energy as alternatives to coal. One of his eventual
group members posted her initial topic on alternative energy mentioning people’s fear of nuclear power
as a real problem to replacing coal. Shawn’s response to this post included the statement “Nuclear
energy has been demonized by the media, despite Nuclear energy being many times cleaner than fossil
fuels and having a large amount of fail-safes; the public still has a negative view on Nuclear energy.”
In the initial interview Shawn explained that his interest in nuclear energy originated with his chemistry
class and the potential he saw it having for meeting our society’s massive “post-industrial energy
demand” in a way that is cleaner than coal. When I asked him what he would think of someone
adamantly against nuclear power, he said that he would ask them to explain their reasoning. He said
that they are probably assuming the worst imaginable scenarios but he felt that when operated properly
nuclear power plants were safe. He said he thought those people were probably caring individuals but
they need to realize that nuclear energy would hurt fewer people than coal does. In this first interview
he said he did not have much information about solar or wind energy.
In the final interview Shawn said that the project had changed his perspective. He came to realize the
pros and cons of each alternative to coal. He explained that he understood more of the arguments
against nuclear and why some might not choose. However, he also added that he had previously
thought there would be some radiation exposure from living close to a nuclear power plant but he was
surprised that it was so minimal. For wind turbines he learned why people would not want it too close
to their home but the challenge and cost of transporting the energy very far. He also said that he
learned about the rare metals needed for solar panels.
By the end of the assignment Shawn had developed a nuanced perspective on alternative energy
sources. He explained that he felt nuclear power would still be needed to meet the energy demands in
large cities but that solar panels on houses and wind turbines to power rural towns were also important
parts of the solution. He said that his tolerance of those with differing opinions did not really change
through the assignment because he continued to be concerned about all the waste from our current
energy supplies. To improve the assignment Shawn suggested that they learn skills in helping shy people
participate more effectively in the group discussions.
Overall analysis from my observations and the performance of all students in the class:
Self-selection: Based on my comparison of the learning process between ACR 202 and CSUS 200 I think
that the self-selection process was a significant improvement that increased students’ motivation and
learning. One adaptation I made to my plan was to catalyze group formation by presenting lists of
people categorized by theme of their initial post and have them join together by those themes, which I
believe saved a lot of time in trying to find each other during the limited class time to form groups. Of
the 39 students who posted initial topics of interest, 19 of them worked on a group project that was
exactly their topic of interest or a very slight variation of it. Another 14 worked on similar topics that
were often a subset of the broader theme they initially posted about (for example they posted an initial
interest in environmental impacts of agriculture and ended up focusing on CAFOs). Students were free
to move to a completely different theme than their original topic and six students did make significant
shifts. Two of these asked permission to change groups a week into the assignment because they were
not satisfied with their initial group. Three of the other four posted initial topical interests that were not
part of any final group’s focus.
Low-risk writing: Based on students’ posts and the replies they received I do not think the step of
posting the three perspectives and responding to three other groups (the first part of step 2) was very
helpful. Many groups were still trying to research their topic and had not yet grasped the policy
comparison part of the assignment. This is likely because it was not modeled for them early on. Other
groups understood the assignment immediately and developed their three perspectives through
interactions with each other and with myself. There were no cases where a comment on a group’s
initial three concepts was altered based on a classmate’s concept. Perhaps this is because it is an
introductory class with a wide range of possible topics and students don’t feel like they are experts
enough on others’ topics to make significant comments.
Peer-review: I did feel that it was beneficial to use peer review on initial drafts of the paper, but
primarily for reasons not related to this project. Students gained skills in communicating constructive
criticism as well as taking criticism but I was not aware of how peer-review actually helped them
understand others’ perspectives better.
6. Conclusion
What I have learned
This mentored teaching project helped me realize the complexity of the learning objective (getting
students to identify and sympathize with diverse perspectives on environmental issues) in real life.
When I abstractly imagined students’ starting point I naively assumed they would have a strong opinion
about a preferred policy option. While this was true for Shawn, it was not true for Jill who was in a
common position of waffling among perspectives on an issue she knew was important but had not
critically analyzed. The assignment was still useful for Jill, and perhaps even more than it was for Shawn,
but it did not follow my simplified mental model. However, for Jill it was not enough to analyze the
other perspective and then re-evaluate her own, she first needed to do some initial research and
develop her own opinion.
Similarly, I learned that I had an oversimplified view of the goal. I imagined a world where carefully
thought out opinions could be respected even though in opposition to each other. I realize now that Jill
is correct (at some level) for being intolerant of those who have not thought through an issue. However,
she (and I) need to remember that we too were once in a similar position and should gracefully try to
help others critically analyze issues and form more developed opinions. Similarly, Shawn is correct in
holding strongly to his value of finding alternative energy solutions to address climate change and not
being “tolerant” of those who just don’t care enough to try. However, in order for Shawn to effectively
lead others to care he will have to care enough about them to give them a reason to listen to him. Here
the underlying worldview issues are very important and are at a deeper level than this assignment
reached.
This mentored teaching project also taught me that low-risk writing assignments with responses from
classmates are not sufficient for facilitating constructive criticism among students. It is not easy to
suggest improvements to another group both because one may feel inadequate and because of fear of
seeming bossy, critical or arrogant. In the same way that students need to be trained how to provide
effective peer review on writing assignments they also need clear instructions and examples of how to
help other groups develop their thinking about an issue. Low-risk writing may not be as effective as a
verbal discussion since writing a post on D2L is more permanent and risk-averse students may avoid
communicating things they are not absolutely sure of.
Limitations of the project and what I would do next time
This mentored teaching project is of little value beyond my own experience because of my inability to
carry out qualitative interviews with many students. While the two examples presented here may be
illustrative of what happened in the rest of the class as larger sample would allow for more robust
analysis of any changes coming from the assignment. One way that I could accomplish this if I had the
opportunity to do it again would be to formalize the qualitative interviews into the course assignments,
such as by allowing student who participated to not have to do another small assignment.
It would also have been helpful to move the whole project earlier in the semester so that it concluded
before the end of the semester. It was difficult to find time to interview students at the end of the
semester before they leave campus.
Connect results to future classroom practice
The first time I used this assignment, in ACR 202, I had an assigned reading that modeled how to write
about three perspectives on the purpose of public education. A guest speaker then modeled how to
facilitate a dialogue on that issue by drawing on students’ opinions on those three perspectives from
their own experiences in high school. That was missing from CSUS 200 because the assignment was a
much smaller part of the course and so could not take as much time. The problem was that many
students were unclear about how to write the paper and most students did not really understand how
to facilitate the dialogue. I had to patch up this missing information by modeling an impromptu
facilitation a week or two before they led the class discussions.
It would also be useful to have students first write a research paper on the science behind their topic to
help them gain a more solid understanding of the issues before analyzing the policy perspectives. I could
imagine this being due in week 5 or 6 and then giving them the rest of the semester to develop a second
paper outlining the three policy alternatives. They could also present their research findings to the class
to gain skills in more standard presentations. At the end of their presentation they could outline the
three perspectives they plan to explore and I could facilitate critical discussion from their classmates
about those perspectives in lieu of the low-risk writing.
One of the major challenges I had implementing this assignment in CSUS 200 was that I also had an
additional group project (with different groups) happening concurrently and I believe students felt
unable to balance the two assignments. While I like both assignments I need to develop a plan to avoid
the confusion and competition for time that I observed in Fall 2014.