The U of M instructors established a set of goals to address the problems spoken of in the previous section. For instance, to address the problem of providing a meaningful context for science
instruction,f
the faculty told us that they needed a new angle, something that "makes it relevant again, like it was in the sixties when we put a man on the
Moon."g
The U of M faculty felt that by focusing on vital environmental problems, they could create a compelling, meaningful context for science education, and could also address the problem that Dave spoke about in the previous section-the academic community's failure to address
global change issues.h
Tim Killeen, for example, thinks that the Global Change initiative will mitigate this failure and will, hopefully, inspire institutions like the University of Michigan to require students to take a course on environmental issues as a requirement for earning a
degree.i
Another problem that the U of M faculty pointed out in the "problems and goals" section is that students often express fear of science because they see it as just a series of abstract numbers and formulas. George Kling, therefore, made it his goal to "dispel that fear" by pointing out to students that, "in your daily life, certain things make perfect sense" and that is "exactly the same way science
works."j
Tim Killeen expressed a similar sentiment saying that the goal of the course is to open students' eyes to science so they would use science as a "tool" instead of a
"club."k
Finally, in order to address their students' failure to see technology as a useful educational tool, the Global Change faculty made it their goal to introduce their students to technology in ways that would facilitate meaningful
learningl
by letting students "examine material...and come to conclusions on their own" with "essentially the same software and the same data that any professional
social scientist would use."m
By putting the responsibility of learning into the hands of the students, they hope to make them more "
independent, n
critical thinkers."o
a. Tim Killeen, professor in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences: "Students get turned off to science forever by getting frustrated over some titration experiment that they can't handle, or getting thrown too much math. And those students then, for the rest of their lives, are phobic about science."
b.
Ben van der Pluijm, professor of Geology: "I am very concerned about what I see happening: the running away as fast as students can from science. And I've realized you don't fight it by just giving them more science; forcing more science on them is not going to work."
c.
George Kling, biology professor: "So, one of the things that I have noticed, especially with the freshmen and especially in this course that has no science prerequisites--no math, no chemistry, none of that--is that they are very afraid of science, and don't quite understand what it is all about...I try to tell them that science is just common sense and give them examples from their everyday lives but the problem is that they aren't familiar with the units science uses. So if we say that in the global carbon cycle we can't find 2 billion tons of carbon a year, is that a lot? Well, if we said that 2 billion people a year went missing, does that sound like a lot?"
d.
Dave Allan: "I think what was going on at that time was a tremendous increase in interest in global change of a climate nature around 1988, 1989. I think the individuals involved took a broad view of global change while they were particularly struck by the emerging concern that the climate was warming as a result of human intervention. There were population issues, environmental issues, and a recognition that there was a social as well as a scientific dimension to this. But I think the prime driver, as I looked back over it, was the emerging sense of change at the global level occurring in an unprecedented way and not being addressed in the academic community, either in research or in teaching. That's what I see as the genesis."
e.
Lisa Curran, professor in SNRE: "I thought students would be much more Web savvy. Many students don't know how to open an attachment. They've never done a library search here. I think there are many skills that we take for granted since there's been this media onslaught showing how technologically savvy these kids are. Maybe they're playing Nintendo, but it doesn't necessarily mean they know how to use this for a learning tool."
f. Patrick Livingood, graduate student instructor: "I try to draw out from the students why this is relevant to consider as people, even if they're not going to be scientists. I to try to make it relevant to society, even if they're not going to be scientists or use any of this directly. When they see a headline about climate change or spending on forestry, they'll have some sense of what that means and how it matters to them. And I see that as just critical."
g. George Kling, professor of Biology, College of LS&A: "I think this is an innovative way to teach science to people who otherwise run away from it, even though their life is going to be filled with science in this century. So my reason for getting involved is driven by wanting a chance to educate students in a very different way, and to make science relevant again, like it was in the sixties when we put a man on the moon."
h. Amy, Global Change student: "I think in the area of goals, mine and the faculty's are the same. And that is, it will be my generation's responsibility to deal with this. It's essentially a crisis of the way that humans interact with the environment because we haven't been really respectful of the environment. We think we have this control over it, and so the point of the class I think is not to just show you the past 50 years and how we just hurt the environment. It's about starting at the very beginning of time, which is what we did last semester. We started with Big Bang theories and are working through to understand how the environment works, how we've impacted it."
Beth, Global Change student: "They want to show us what we can do to change things when they become problems, what we shouldn't change, what problems are important, what problems are really a crisis, and what problems really aren't problems."
i. Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science: "We think that this program might ultimately reach a point where it is a requirement for all students to take 'a human relationship with the planet' course, and that you shouldn't be able to get a degree from the University of Michigan unless you have an appreciation for the implications of this relationship. You should know what's going on. You should know what's happening with the water resources, with land use, with soil quality, the impacts of industrialization, of migration, with the role of conflict resolution, all those things that are happening. And ultimately we'd like to tie this into the humanities, ethics, and so on. That ought to be a foundation for a university degree, and I think that if Michigan could really pull that off, it would be very distinctive."
j. George Kling, biology professor: "One of the things that I want to get across to them is that they can be independent thinkers and use the tools of science in order to evaluate questions or problems. And it is not necessarily just with science, but I can use examples that come from all walks of life and ask them to apply scientific principles to anything that is happening in their lives. So I try to dispel that fear of science and tell them that science is just common sense, and give them examples of how in your everyday life, certain things make perfect sense. I ask them, 'How many people would agree with this?' Well, of course they would agree. And then, well, that's exactly the same way science works. It's just a matter of assembling some information that is common sense. All they have to learn is the weird numbers."
k. Tim Killeen: "Our vision is that students who go through such a course will have their eyes open, will have tools, won't be afraid of science. They won't use science as a club, but as a tool to support a problem-solving outlook on the world. And there are jobs in every walk of life that can be enriched by this perspective. That is the responsibility of a research university-to do that by infusing research elements into the course."
l. Dave Allan: "I see the technology as being all sort of linked with the learning gains. I don't see the technology as an end in itself, but it is a terrific enabler of what we want to do."
m. Patrick Livingood, GSI: "I'm glad the technology gives them a chance to tinker with the idea they've been given, and play with the data they've been given, and get some confidence. They can begin coming to conclusions on their own, especially this semester with ArcView. I mean, they're using essentially the same software and the same data that any professional social scientist would use. And so hopefully they would just get a sense that they can examine this material on their own. There shouldn't be any barrier for them."
n. Laura, Global Change student: "One of the goals of the course is to make students more independent. The first lab they show you a picture of what you have to do, they give you step-by-step instructions, and as it gets further and further on in the term, they'll start to tell you, 'Design a model for this purpose,' but they won't tell you any of the specifics. Or they'd tell you to 'Use a combination of statistical methods or data from our database to show the relationship between these two things.' And then you'll have to do it on your own."
o. Ben van der Pluijm, Professor of Geology, College of LS&A: "Many of these students will go on to be lawyers, politicians, or whatever they want to be, and they will make major decisions that affect our lives. To do this right, they will not only need to read and write, but also think about the material that is given to them. That's what we want them to do in Global Change, teach them to be critical thinkers about the world around them."
