by editor | Jun 12, 2014 | Place-based Education
10 Questions to Ask When Developing Place-based Learning Experiences

by Gregory Smith, Professor of Education, Lewis & Clark College
he March 19, 2014 Oregonian included an article about two math teachers at Benson High School in Portland who have created a course they call Tech Geometry that requires students to apply their emerging mathematical understandings to projects that have social value. They combine work in the classroom with work in a spacious auto shop where they use what they’ve learned about triangles, the Pythagorean theorem, or trigonometric functions to design and construct a 120-foot structure for the otherwise homeless residents of Portland’s Dignity Village or a playhouse for Escuela-Viva, a nearby bilingual preschool.
The class is an example of place- and community-based education. This approach to teaching and learning involves finding ways to give young people a chance to use their emerging academic knowledge and skills to make positive contributions to their community. The result is almost always engaged students, energized teachers, and enthusiastic community members. Learning becomes meaningful as the boundaries between classroom and the world beyond are reduced, students understand the value of what they’re learning, and tax-paying citizens come to see public school as an institution that gives back as well as takes.
Developing lessons or units that incorporate these possibilities can serve as an important motivation for student learning. Even with today’s emphasis on instruction driven by standards and tests, teachers in school districts around the United States and other countries are finding ways to integrate opportunities for applied learning outside the classroom into their work with students. Teachers successful in moving in this direction start small with projects that easily connect to curriculum requirements and have a strong likelihood of success. To guide their efforts, they often consider the following questions:
1. What local topics, issues, or projects are likely to be meaningful for students and give them an opportunity to participate in learning activities that others will value?
2. What aspects of the required curriculum are related to this issue or project? List specific subtopics that students might explore, including those related to other subject areas.
3. What four or five overarching questions might guide your students’ study?
4. What specific learning standards would this topic or project enable you to address?
5. How will you assess student learning? List possible strategies, including some culminating projects. Discuss how you will scaffold the learning that students need.
6. What community partners might you bring into the classroom to help teach this unit or to support activities outside of school?
7. What field studies, monitoring, or other inquiry activities might students become involved with in their neighborhood, community, or region?
8. What community needs might students address as part of this unit or project? What service learning opportunities does it afford? How might you publicize the contributions that students make?
9. How might students become involved in community governance activities related to this project? How could they participate in data gathering, reporting, or other forms of public participation, such as organizing meetings or planning community events?
10. What creative possibilities in the fields of art, music, dance, film, or theater relate to this project? What about vocational opportunities or internships?
More than anything, implementing place- and community-based education requires a shift of perspective and the willingness to see learning opportunities in something other than textbooks, computer programs, or laboratory experiments whose end results are already known. By approaching the world beyond the school as a text filled with potential resources and needs, teachers can bring to their students the kinds of learning experiences that once lay at the heart of cultural transmission in earlier human societies, experiences that gave young people the chance to develop valued competencies and to perceive themselves as people able to contribute to the well-being of their community. When this happens, learning becomes not a chore but a means for realizing one’s identity and ability to make a positive difference in the lives of others.
Gregory Smith is a Professor Emeritus of Education at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. Contact him at gasmith@lclark.edu
This article originally appeared in TOST, the journal of the Oregon Science Teachers Association, June 2014.
Addendum:
Place-Based Education Northwest was formed following a suggestion from a participant at a two-day workshop about this educational approach in November, 2005. Its primary purpose has been to serve as a meeting place for people interested in making room for local knowledge and learning experiences in regional schools. The organization now meets twice-yearly in early December and May at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. These gatherings have provided an opportunity for local educators who have adopted place-based approaches to share what they are doing with others. Meetings have also served as the springboard for the beginning of local workshops and Institutes about place-based education as well as presentations at regional conferences.
For more information about this network, go to the PBENW Blog at: http://placebasededucationnw.blogspot.com/p/history.html
by editor | Jun 10, 2014 | Environmental Literacy

Environmental Literacy: What have students learned that is not on the test?
by Janell Simpson and Susan Meyers
reprinted from the North American Association for Environmental Education
he intent of this article is to provide tools to the classroom teacher to document the impact of a formal environmental education program on the environmental literacy of students. Although standardized testing provides an objective view of skills and knowledge, integration of data from an evaluation tool will provide a more complete assessment—not only of the individual student learning, but also a larger picture of the classroom learning environment that nurtures the whole student.
Measuring environmental education outcomes is a step forward from anecdotes to reliable measures of student growth. A measurement tool that evaluates student attitudes about the environment will help the teacher design a formal program that includes practical ways that an individual can make a difference based on newly-developed environmental literacy. The tools offered seek to quantify environmental literacy both as observed by the classroom teacher and as self-reported by the student. Standardized testing may provide an effective assessment of knowledge and competencies detailed in a curriculum. However, competencies, knowledge, and dispositions should be expressed in behaviors; and environmentally responsible behavior is the ultimate expression of environmental literacy.
Environmental literacy
An environmentally literate person is someone who, both individually and together with others, makes informed decisions concerning the environment; is willing to act on these decisions to improve the well-being of other individuals, societies, and the global environment; and participates in civic life. Those who are environmentally literate possess, to varying degrees:
• The knowledge and understanding of a wide range of environmental concepts, problems, and issues;
• A set of cognitive and affective dispositions;
• A set of cognitive skills and abilities; and
• The appropriate behavioral strategies to apply such knowledge and understanding in order to make sound and effective decisions in a range of environmental contexts.
This definition treats the primary elements of environmental literacy—the cognitive (knowledge and skills), affective, and behavioral components—as both interactive and developmental in nature. That is, individuals develop along a continuum of literacy over time—they are not either environmentally literate or illiterate.
There are four interrelated components of environmental literacy: knowledge, dispositions, competencies, and environmentally responsible behavior, all of which are expressed in particular contexts. Competencies are clusters of skills and abilities that may be called upon and expressed for a specific purpose. Measurement of competencies is the primary objective in large-scale assessments. They include the capacity to:
• Identify environmental issues;
• Ask relevant questions;
• Analyze environmental issues;
• Investigate environmental issues;
• Evaluate and make personal judgments about environmental issues;
• Use evidence and knowledge to defend positions and resolve issues; and
• Create and evaluate plans to resolve environmental issues.
The expression of a competency is influenced by prior knowledge and dispositions (Hollweg, 2011).
Measurement tools
The teacher rating tool (Table 1) can be personalized for different groups. It seeks to quantify both practices, such as recycling and gardening, and connections to larger issues, such as global warming.

Other types of measurement tools to consider include: informal interviews, journal entries written in response to a prompt, surveys, pre- and post-tests, and student projects. Several Likert scale surveys are available examining student connection to nature, sense of place, and environmental stewardship (EE Outcome Measurement Tools, 2012). Additional outcomes might be observed in a typical environmental education classroom and could be included in such a tool. Do students actively conserve energy, tend a school garden, or participate in composting? Do students show awareness of environmental connections between current events and classroom discussions? Does the student’s artwork show an appreciation of the natural environment? Does the student report family dialog about nutrition or food security or visits to a farmers’ market?
References
Bennett, D. B. (1984). Evaluating environmental education in schools: a practical guide for teachers: UNESCO.
Bogan, M., and Kromrey, J. (1996). Measuring the environmental literacy of high school students. Florida journal of educational research, 36 (1).
EE outcomes measurement tools. (2012). From Cornell University Civic Ecology Lab: http://civeco.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/2012-meeo-tools.pdf
Evaluation glossary. (n.d.). Retrieved from MEERA My Environmental Education
Evaluation Resource Assistant: http://meera.snre.umich.edu/links-resources/meera-evaluation-glossary
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., and Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.
Hollweg, K. S. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy: Executive summary. Washington, D.C.: NAAEE.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2006). Retrieved from fostering sustainable behavior: Community-based social marketing: http://www.cbsm.com/public/world.lasso
Murphy, B. (2011). Assessment and evaluation of outdoor/enviro-education. Green Teacher 94, 34-41.
Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Prochaska, J., and DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing the traditional boundaries of therapy. Melbourne, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
Simmons, B. (2004). Designing evaluation for education projects: NOAA Office of Education and Sustainable Development.
The Transtheortical Model. (n.d.). Retrieved from pro-change behavior systems, Inc.: http://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change
Todd, A., Stuart, E., Schiller, S., and Goldman, C. (2012). Evaluation,
Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) of residential behavior-based energy efficiency programs: Issues and recommendations. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://behavioranalytics.lbl.gov
The Transtheortical Model. (n.d.). Retrieved from pro-change Behavior Systems, Inc.: http://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change
Todd, A., Stuart, E., Schiller, S., and Goldman, C. (2012). Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) of Residential Behavior-Based Energy
Efficiency Programs: Issues and Recommendations. http://behavioranalytics.lbl.gov: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Murphy, B. (2011). Assessment and evaluation of outdoor/enviro-education. Green Teacher 94, 34-41.
Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
by editor | May 15, 2014 | Place-based Education
Successful educational projects that focus on the community share key characteristics.
by James Lewicki
During the last several years, I have worked with dozens of elementary, middle, and high schools that value place-based learning enough to shift curriculum priorities to seeing that students, as well as studying about the community in the classroom, learn in the field with community elders and experts. Privileged to see what works across the country, I have coached students and teachers to create productive place-based projects. Over time, I have seen again and again how a handful of characteristics always frame good work.
In trying to distill these essential features into a mnemonic device, I came up with eight characteristics. The first letters of each word form the acronym MEASURES. (Considering that a worthy placed-based project measures academic achievement and personal success, this is a highly appropriate term.) Where I see great place-based work, I find these characteristics active and alive; where I see the place-based vision embraced, but the reality struggling, it is always because two, three, or maybe more of the characteristics are lacking.
Read the rest of this article here.
James Lewicki is a national director for EdVisions who works with schools across America that embrace project-based learning, as well as a National Rural Faculty member of the Rural School and Community Trust.
by editor | Mar 20, 2014 | Learning Theory
By Jim Martin
CLEARING Associate Editor
he young woman carefully pours hydrogen peroxide into a graduated cylinder, presses a key on a computer keyboard, then measures ten drops of liver homogenate into the cylinder. The surface of the hydrogen peroxide seems to leap at the first drop of homogenate, then the drop begins to froth and spin as it is carried deep into the cylinder, trailing a growing, spinning plume of bubbles. Each drop increases the frothing turbulence in the cylinder until it seems enveloped in a pulsing explosion of bubbles. Meanwhile, the young woman’s glance moves from a developing graph on the computer’s monitor to the activity in the cylinder and back again. Science is being done.
If we could see into her mind, what kind of thoughts must we find there? What must she have done and thought to get to where she is at this moment? How will her thoughts change when the reaction has gone to completion and she reviews the data? One thing is certain: this young woman has a history of doing process science. Another thing is certain; her work presents her with conceptual schemata which require filling out with specific facts; the work she does generates a need to know. This need can drive her into the books and the web to find out. Can we capture this kind of science in our classrooms? Can we accommodate her experiences into a model of science pedagogy?
How might this scenario play out in a stream, where the young woman is measuring water quality, collecting and identifying macroinvertebrates, and entering her data into an iPad? Is there any substantial difference in her experiences in the two environments? Certainly there are logistical differences, but I submit that these are an emergent phenomenon which arises from our traditional concept of what school is. Is school a journey of the mind, or is it a place with boundaries, where we learn to pass tests? In both places, she is engaging similar mental concepts, and procedural processes. Our bodies and brains are able to work in both environments. The significant thing is that what the mind and body are doing has to be meaningful. In the case of this young woman, what she is learning is related to what she knows of other knowledge; it is being learned within a familiar context. If she were learning for a test, she would learn the facts, but they wouldn’t necessarily be learned in order to understand. The kind of learning this young woman is engaging is active learning, in which she is constantly comparing her experiences with what she knows. Whether she is consciously aware of it, she has learned how to learn. That’s a powerful skill.
In school, we tend to move from one topic directly to another as if this is what education is about. Many of us do this in our personal world, racing through life, leafing through it as we would a magazine in the doctor’s office, never pausing to contemplate what it is, what it means. We should take the time to absorb life so we can live within it. The same goes for school. Instead of zipping on to the next topic as soon as we’ve covered the current one well enough to test on it, we should probe for students’ attainment of the concepts embedded in the topic to see if they’ve nailed them down. We ought to give students a chance to think about what they’re learning, and design a repeat investigation to nail down their understandings. We need to explore ways to transition what we have just learned to what we will be learning. Even though they can parrot words we’ve used, they may entertain misconceptions and may well not actually understand what we assume they know.
This applies also to teachers. Our pre-service preparation and most of our in-service learning was done with this industrial assembly line model, zipping us through a ritual that eventually placed us at the head of a classroom. About twenty years ago, I was doing a wetlands ecology institute for teachers, and a question came up among the staff about what to do after the teacher participants’ first afternoon in a local wetland. One opinion was, “Okay, they’ve done their first study. Let’s get them ready to go to the coast for their second study.” The other opinion was, “They’ve done what amounts to a casual observation, which might have raised some questions they could follow up with a second investigation.” Fortunately, the second opinion won the day; the participants asked questions which arose as they processed their observations, and they used these to design the following day’s study at the same wetland. Having done that inquiry, once at the coast they hit the beach running, the well-oiled machine, and they nailed down what they had been learning about wetland ecology. It took time, but it moved them further up the learning curve.
After their original casual observation, we could have left them where they were, some in the Acquisition phase, some entering Proficiency. This is what many in-service educators do. We assume the teacher will move to Mastery, but only a few have the self-confidence to do so. Instead, we leave them knowing that they could know, but not ready to take the next few steps. Dryas and I had a mutual friend, who was in late middle-age. Let’s call her Sarah. Sarah had decided to leave an emotionally abusive relationship, but had no idea what to do, nor did she have the confidence to try. A few of us located a place where she could stay, and I agreed to meet with her once a week to help her develop a business plan for using art to explore relationships as a way to earn a living. Over a period of three or four months, we’d meet once a week, and she’d bring out what she’d accomplished on the plan. Her Acquisition phase was long, about six weeks, but then she started accelerating into Proficiency. Sarah had been making collages to express her feelings then interpreting them. This is what she planned to teach others. After moving into Proficiency, each week her collages portrayed a bird, first totally enclosed in a sealed room becoming a bird looking out the window, seeing life outside the window, perched on the window sill, and finally freedom – soaring in the air toward the Sun. The slow but steady movement from locus of control far outside the body, to deep within and freedom to live her life. It takes time, but moves us up the learning curve. We need this in our emotional life, but also in our cognitive, conceptual life.
What’s the difference in insecurity about living in a relationship and insecurity about teaching in a content area? You could leave the relationship because the other isn’t likely to change. But, understanding the science means you’re in a win-win situation, and don’t have to leave, much as you would be in the relationship if the other decided to go into counseling. The young woman pouring hydrogen peroxide obviously understands what she is doing and why. She’ll continue this relationship. That’s what we want.
Are we adrift now? The point is that, like all things we do, they’re done by humans. We bring our small, effective human arsenal to bear on a large number of issues, all manageable with what a well-understood arsenal contains. In school, the secret is your confidence in your capacity to teach, just as in your personal life, the secret is your confidence in your capacity to manage a relationship. Likewise, a student’s confidence in the content and concepts determines her ownership of her learnings. We need to bring them to confidence, then we’re all ready to move to the next topic. How do we do that?
Working with Meredith, the middle-school teacher who takes her class out to the creek at the edge of the school yard, we’ve seen how she has learned to have her students repeat investigations to move along the learning curve. Like a booster rocket, they’ve got altitude and velocity; just need that extra push to get them into orbit. The first time through their work on the creek, they figured out how to do it. Setting up more than one station per group, one at a riffle, at a glide, and at a pool, would ensure students had ample opportunity to move to Mastery. At each trip to the creek, students might repeat their observations more quickly, and could move in to explore new curricula in the time saved. While moving their understanding of, say, macroinvertebrate collection, identification, and interpretation to Mastery, they could be moving their understanding of the roles of the rest of that ecosystem in generating a healthy habitat for the animals they are studying through Acquisition into at least initial Proficiency. That puts Meredith in charge of her curriculum. Which is where she should be; on the road to building competent, empowered minds.
This is a regular feature by CLEARING “master teacher” Jim Martin that explores how environmental educators can help classroom teachers get away from the pressure to teach to the standardized tests,and how teachers can gain the confidence to go into the world outside of their classrooms for a substantial piece of their curricula. See the other installments here, or search Categories for “Jim Martin.”
by editor | Feb 13, 2014 | Teaching Science
Should they direct students’ educations, or would they be better applied to teachers’ educations?
by Jim Martin
CLEARING Associate Editor
icture this: Science teachers with a strong background in doing science, working in a collegial environment, building their own independent curricula. Will they do a better job than those who, working alone in their classrooms, implement top-down national standards? I like the collegial model. Where it describes how teachers in a school actually work, students do best. To accomplish a collegial model means science teachers must organize themselves to do a better job of overseeing their pre- and in-service educations and the way they deliver their curricula; they need to be in charge. Publishing sets of science standards isn’t how to improve science education. The people who teach science need to be comfortable with it, to know and use science, and pass this capacity on to their students. That, by itself, will do the job.
We’ve been following teachers and their efforts to look outside the classroom for their curricula. This isn’t a smooth process for most teachers. For many of us, our pre-service educations didn’t prepare us for it, the work itself entails a set of skills and knowledge we haven’t practiced, and it produces an emergent set of outcomes which generalize to all disciplinary areas. The world outside is the subject of K-12 education, but it isn’t taught as if it were. Before there were schools, we learned about the world by living it. That’s how our brains are organized to learn for understanding and empowerment. Learning by memorizing puts facts in our brains, but doesn’t empower the brain to use them to navigate the real world. If it did, we’d do a better job at the helm. In spite of perennial rhetoric about the outcome of science education in the US, it still resolves, for the most part, to specific knowledge of scientific facts. Science offers much more than this.

Photo copyright 2014 Jim Martin
One thing I noticed during my years in the classroom is that scientists who decide to become science teachers become very good science teachers. They aren’t limited by the words and illustrations in the teachers’ edition. They know, understand, and do science, and use that as their foundation to teach from. How would science and environmental education look if science teachers had also done science? What would we have to do to explore this model, decide how to use it, and begin to implement it? There have been initiatives like this that were very successful, but which died at the end of their funding. They made a big dent in the way a number of teachers teach, but made no impression on entities like state departments of education, or most school district superintendents. Because, by using the real world to generate curricula, teaching science by doing science doesn’t rely on standard publishers’ offerings, it doesn’t appear to be education. To the inexperienced.
Politicians, citizens, and educators have been addressing the use of standards and benchmarks, and standards-based tests in K-12 schools for at least two decades. While they are still on the hunt for the magical set of standards and benchmarks which will guarantee improvement in science education, to date a fruitless search, some of the words they utter may have practical use. Once in a while, words like analysis and synthesis, problem solving, reading for understanding, are spoken. Do we teach to these words? Or do we teach to memorize these words and their meanings.
While the words aren’t the customary ones we read in science text books (critical thinking, analysis and synthesis, etc.), they speak more clearly to science than acquiring a set of memorized words and facts. A checklist of standards addressed but not learned for understanding. Used in an authentic way, these words have the capacity to speak to involvement and investment in science, to empowerment as persons, to minds immersed in the real world that K-12 education is supposed to prepare us for. It’s up to us to see that this is what emerges in our classrooms and on our sites.
Here is a list of processes engaged on college campuses, and which are proposed by some for middle and high school students: critical thinking, analysis and problem solving, scientific and quantitative reasoning, writing, critical reading and evaluation, writing effectiveness and mechanics, and the ability to critique and construct arguments. Might they be goals for us to shoot for, an effective set of standards? How would you use them to teach science or environmental education topics?
While we continue to try to improve science (and all) education, we produce only words; standards and benchmarks. Just the title, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), one recent initiative to improve science education, is a clear indicator that we continue to parse words to fit what we are already doing, and call that change. It’s true that some standards proponents acknowledge that we have to do a better job of preparing teachers, but offer little to provide funding and education resources to do the job.
The intentions of the NGSS to stimulate new curricula, train pre- and in-service teachers, foster students who do science as science is done, and students who master science concepts, could be a sign of hope if you take them at face value. But if you look at the flip side, this could simply be more of the same with a newly calibrated vocabulary. A vocabulary which can be didactically taught and memorized, changing little that we actually do. And which may not be funded to supplement the necessary pre- and in-service training to implement the meat of the proposed changes. According to the National Science Teachers Association, 3.2 million teachers will be affected by the NGSS. Can we expect their real needs to be paid for?
There is a sense among people that, if you “just use the words, you’re doing the thing.” I’ve sat in in-service presentations that do this. In one, at the end of my K-12 teaching career, we were being asked to use words like “why” and “how” in multiple-choice question stems in order to induce critical thinking. How much critical thinking can you induce in a multiple-choice question stem? We need to do better than this. You have to experience the cognitive processes the words refer to. That’s how our brain learns for understanding. College teachers purport to do this. What if we explored what they do? I know that even very young children learn very well when they are allowed to use their own brains to do the learning. What would happen if you used your own brain to organize and deliver your curriculum?
Do we ask all colleges and universities to teach to the same science standards? Or, do we allow them the latitude to teach what they think ought to be taught? What emerges from this? Why? Why they and not us? What would emerge? How would K-16 collaborations work out? Would they improve education? Impoverish it? Make no difference? For instance, college courses often involve students in critical thinking, analysis and problem solving, scientific and quantitative reasoning, writing, critical reading and evaluation, writing effectiveness and mechanics, and the ability to critique and construct arguments. In other words, they know that brains can learn for understanding, and those thought processes use the parts of the brain that are engaged during learning for understanding. Or, at least, one would hope that they did. The standards remind us of conceptual areas we need to address, but we must do a good job of giving our students quality time to engage them, to reflect on what they experience, and learn for understanding and empowerment. There is no teachers’ manual on this, but the process can be learned and used. It’s up to us to learn how to do it.
This is a regular feature by CLEARING “master teacher” Jim Martin that explores how environmental educators can help classroom teachers get away from the pressure to teach to the standardized tests,and how teachers can gain the confidence to go into the world outside of their classrooms for a substantial piece of their curricula. See the other installments here, or search Categories for “Jim Martin.”