Exploring the Politics and Sustainability of Energy Production: A Professional Development Program for Science Teachers

Exploring the Politics and Sustainability of Energy Production: A

Professional Development Program for Science Teachers

Mark Bloom, Dallas Baptist University

Sarah Quebec Fuentes, Texas Christian University

Kelly Feille, University of North Texas

Molly Holden, Tarrant County College

Abstract: This paper describes a three-week professional development program, for inservice

science teachers, which included on-site field trips to different energy production sites,

explored the variety of opinions about them (via film, podcasts, news media, and expert

lectures), and incorporated mathematical modeling as a lens through which to evaluate

the relative sustainability of each energy type. The teacher participants explored oil,

natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and coal energy production methods. This paper

describes in detail their experience at a coal strip mine and a coal fueled power plant. For

each type of energy, the teachers completed a pre- and post-assessment on their

understanding of how the energy source was used to generate electricity and their

perceptions of the environmental costs of each. The participants’ change in understanding

of the energy production methods and increasing awareness of environmental costs are

shared. Further, in their own words, participants describe the impact of the professional

development on their own knowledge base and their classroom teaching as well as their

perceptions of experiential learning as a vehicle for conceptual change.

Keywords: energy politics, sustainability, professional development, inservice teachers,

mathematical modeling, experiential learning

Mark Bloom ([email protected]) is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of

Biology at Dallas Baptist University. His research interests include nature of science,

environmental education, STEM education, and the interaction of science and faith-based

beliefs.

Sarah Quebec Fuentes is currently an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education at

Texas Christian University. Her research focuses on classroom discourse, preservice

teacher education, teacher self-efficacy, teacher knowledge, educative curriculum

materials, and models of collaboration.

Kelly Feille is currently a Senior Lecturer of STEM Education at the University of North

Texas. Her research interests include teacher professional development, outdoor science

education, and teacher professional life histories.

Mary Holden is a professional geologist; science education consultant; and instructor of

geology, environmental science and technology, and occupational safety at Tarrant

County College and the University of Texas at Arlington's Division of Enterprise

Development. Her academic interests include education in earth and environmental

sciences, and occupational health and safety.

Mitigation of impending environmental impacts will require an unprecedented

effort on the part of all of earth’s citizens. It will require the public to possess the

intellectual tools necessary to understand and evaluate issues, and to compare

sources and dig deeper into problems so as to differentiate truth from

propaganda. (Saylan & Blumstein, 2011, p. 19)

While multiple definitions of sustainability exist, Cullingford (2004) describes it

generally as “paying attention to the long-term consequences of actions and, by implication,

thinking of others who might suffer from the immediacy of one’s personal greed” (p. 17). While

this most often brings to mind the natural environment, such consequences can also extend to

societal and economic realms (among others). The sustainability of energy in the United States

has become a highly politicized issue, and the various sources of energy and energy production

methods are intimately linked to the looming environmental concerns including water shortages,

habitat destruction, species loss, and climate change. Navigating such a political landscape

requires the ability to (1) understand the basic methods of energy production, (2) see beyond the

rhetoric provided by special interest groups (e.g., industry representatives, environmentalists,

corporations) and recognize the truth and/or fallacy of their various perspectives, and (3)

compare the relative sustainability of various energy sources. The present paper describes a

professional development program, for inservice science teachers, which explored the politics

and sustainability of six distinct energy sources. Participants went on field trips to observe coal,

oil, natural gas, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy production methods and, through news,

expert lectures, media, film, podcast, and text, gained knowledge of multiple opposing opinions

of each energy source. Using a pedagogical approach, which incorporated experiential learning

and mathematics modeling, participants developed a more sophisticated perception regarding the

sustainability of energy.

Literature Review

Politicization of Energy

Large scale environmental concerns such as biodiversity loss, resource depletion,

industrial pollution, and climate change have gained increasing importance over the last several

decades. In his book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Friedman (2008) warned that the American way

of energy and resource consumption, if adopted by developing countries, would lead to a

worldwide climate and biodiversity disaster. He advocates for a “redesigning and reinventing”

(p. 76) of how Americans utilize natural resources and consume energy that incorporate

sustainable practices. Such changes, however, do not come easy. Saylan and Blumstein (2011)

describe the highly politicized nature of environmental sustainability and the resulting paralyzing

indecision, argumentation, and lack of change that exists today. They partially blame the current

situation on the educational institutions, which have not fostered critical thinking skills sufficient

to understand complex issues such as environmental sustainability. Instead, they maintain that

society craves simplistic explanations that are “quickly expressed and easily digested” (Saylan &

Blumstein, 2011, pp. 3-4) despite the fact that such snippets rarely express authentic

representations of the issues (Baimbridge, 2004). Indeed, such simplified representations of

complex issues often take the form of diametrically opposed viewpoints that can represent

economic, political, and even religious perspectives and juxtapose ecocentric philosophies

against technocentric (Bybee, McCrae, & Laurie, 2009).

The current political landscape presents distinct viewpoints regarding environmental

issues with the more liberal administrations adopting pro-environmental positions while their

more conservative counterparts align with technocentric, business-friendly positions (Saylan &

Blumstein, 2011). This dichotomy was not always the case. Prior to the mid 1980’s, the strong

political undertones were not yet present and environmentalism was largely bipartisan in nature.

Friedman (2008) marks the Reagan administration (1981-1989) as the turning point away from

bipartisanship regarding the environment: “Regan ran not only against government in general but

against environmental regulation in particular” and “turned environmental regulation into a much

more partisan and polarizing issue than it had ever been before” (p. 15). However, in a

democratic society, an informed citizenry is of utmost importance to meet the challenges

presented with respect to environmental concerns. Only such an informed society will be able to

evaluate the various perspectives presented by distinct interest groups and be able to make

educated decisions.

Experiential Learning

From an experiential standpoint, “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created

through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). However, what constitutes an

experience varies in the literature on experiential learning (Moon, 1999). Boud, Keogh, and

Walker (1985) adopt a wide-ranging interpretation of experience, which includes professional

development sessions, on-site visits, talks, research, and unanticipated events. Moon argues that

experience typically encompasses more than one component. For example, an on-site visit may

be accompanied by a talk or supporting literature. Further, learners bring preconceived notions

with them to experiences (Moon, 1999). In particular, with respect to sustainability education,

Garvey (2013) stresses the importance of differentiating between unprejudiced reality and biased

perceptions. Experiential learning is a means to make this distinction.

False subjective beliefs can often be supported by increased access to information but

they are rarely supported by increased access to experiences. The more we actually

experience things and use the information available to supplement and complement our

knowledge, the greater and more accurate the understanding. (Garvey, 2013, para. 6)

According to the opening definition, learning requires not only experiences but also the

transformation of these experiences. This process of modifying preconceived notions,

confronting suppositions, and building knowledge involves reflection (Eraut, 1994; Kolb, 1984;

Medrick, 2013; Moon, 1999). Engaging in mathematical modeling is a way to foster this

reflection on experiences.

Mathematical Modeling

Mathematical modeling exemplifies the connection between mathematics and “intelligent

citizenship” often in the arena of scientific concerns (Pollak, 2011, p. vii). In particular, a

mathematical model is a “mathematical construct designed to study a real-world system or

behavior of interest” (Giordano, Weir, & Fox, 2003, p. 1). The process of building a model and

using it to make decisions about a real-life problem encompasses repeated cycles of the

following stages:

1. Identify a problem,

2. Simplify the problem,

3. Create a model to represent the simplified problem using mathematics,

4. Implement the model for the problem,

5. Assess whether the model appropriately addresses the problem, and

6. Modify the model based on the assessment (Munakata, 2006)

The first two stages involve developing an understanding of a problem to build a representative

model. These stages require a great amount of time while simultaneously presenting difficulties

for novice mathematical modelers (Galbraith, Stillman, Brown, & Edwards, 2007; Haines &

Crouch, 2010). In order to understand a problem, modelers must consider what information is

important to the problem, make assumptions, identify relevant variables, and determine any

relationships between the variables (Blum & Kaiser, 1991 as cited in Maaβ, 2006; see also

Moscardini, 1989; Pollak, 2007). To accomplish this level of comprehension, experts in the field

of modeling recommend thorough research via a combination of examinations of literature,

multiple forms of media, interaction with experts, actual experiences, and simulations (Brinkman

& Brinkman, 2007; Caron & Bélair, 2007; Galbraith et al., 2007). Engaging in the modeling

process may lead to an in-depth understanding of and informed decision-making regarding a real

world concern (Brinkman & Brinkman 2007; Galbraith et al., 2007; Hilborn & Mangel, 1997).

Professional Development

The overall intention of the professional development (PD) was to increase the

participants’ awareness of the complexity of energy sustainability and to expose them to the

naivety of simplistic, one-sided perspectives on the sustainability of any single energy source. To

accomplish this, the PD was designed to develop the participants’ understanding of the major

methods of energy production used to generate electricity in Texas and to explore the relative

environmental sustainability of each. Three science educators, a mathematics educator, and

content specialists facilitated the PD, which included an intensive three-week summer session

plus monthly follow-up meetings throughout the subsequent academic year. Sixteen inservice

secondary science teachers participated in the PD program. The three-week portion of the PD is

the focus of the present paper. During the summer experience, participants learned about

mathematical modeling, studied the energy production process via in-class and on-site

instruction and experiences, and participated in group discussions and activities, which helped to

synthesize information gained during classroom and field experiences.

Employing a modeling as vehicle approach (Maaβ, 2006), mathematical modeling

became a frame which participants used as they considered information gained throughout the

three-week PD. An initial introduction to mathematical modeling centered on the beginning

stages of the modeling process: identifying variables and making assumptions. In particular,

participants identified the variables for consideration when establishing a departure time to arrive

at work on time. Subsequently, the mathematics educator guided participants in the generation of

the steps of the modeling process. After two sessions, the participants created and presented

initial models of the environmental costs of locally versus non-locally grown produce.

Instruction about the various energy production processes varied and included non-

biased, scientific background information about general energy production methods and various,

opposing perspectives regarding economic and environmental benefits (and costs) of each energy

source. Information sources that spanned the spectrum of perspectives regarding energy

production sources included The Energy Report published by the Texas Comptroller of Public

Accounts [TCPA] (2008), films (both instructional documentaries and mainstream), news media,

on-site visits to energy extraction/production sites, and presentations by energy sector

representatives and environmental biologists. Before, during, and after on-site visits the

participants shared their developing ideas regarding each energy source and considered the

variables when determining environmental impact of energy production. Table 1 describes the

experiences for each energy source.

Table 1

Energy Type Location of Instruction Instructional Experience

Coal

Oak Hill Mine and

Martin Creek Steam

Electric Plant,

Henderson, TX

Tour of Oak Hill and Martin Creek by energy

company representatives

Film – Coal Country (Geller, 2009)

Film – Burning the Future: Coal in America

(Novack, 2008)

Hydroelectric Buchanan Dam,

Buchanan, TX

Lower Colorado River Authority representative

presentation and tour

Film – Deliverance (Boorman, 1972)

News – 2010/2011 Texas drought

Natural Gas Classroom

XTO Energy representative presentation

Film – Gasland (Fox, 2010)

News – Local construction of gas wells

Nuclear Comanche Peak

Nuclear Power Plant,

Somervell, TX

Video and tour by Comanche Peak

representatives

Film – Silkwood (Nichols & Hausman, 1983)

News – Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

meltdown

Oil East Texas Oil

Museum,

Kilgore, TX

Video and tour by museum representative

Film – A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash

(Gelpke & McCormack, 2006)

News – Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Gulf of

Mexico

Wind Wolf Ridge Wind

Farm,

Muenster, TX

NextEra representative presentation

Research ecologist presentation

A detailed description for coal is in the next section.

At the completion of on-site visits and instruction, in groups, the participants worked to create

models comparing the energy sources’ impact on the environment. The intention was not for the

groups to generate complete models; however, using a modeling as vehicle approach helped the

participants gain an understanding of the complexity of sustainable energy production, a primary

goal of the PD. At the conclusion of the three-week PD, each group prepared and delivered a

presentation for one assigned stance (either for or against) regarding one assigned energy source.

Participants, acting as audience members during the presentations, applied their new

understanding to contest or support views communicated by their peers.

Coal Generated Electricity

This section provides a detailed description of instruction and experiences intended to

expose participants to multiple perspectives of an energy source, specifically coal power.

Initially, participants read textbook materials regarding the scientific, non-biased, background

information on the generation of electricity from coal (TCPA, 2008). Participants then visited

Oak Hill Mine in Henderson, Texas where a representative from the mine guided them through a

bus-tour, which explored the extraction of coal through surface mining and the reclamation

process and progress at the mine. Participants observed the mine at all states of extraction and

reclamation. The participants were initially surprised by the expansive destruction of the strip

mining dragline as they were driven down into the mining pit (Figure 1). However, the

Figure 1. Strip mine site (left) and dragline bucket (right), Oak Hill Mine, Henderson, TX.

controlled nature of the strip mining operation contrasted with devastation of mountaintop

removal coal mining as depicted in the documentary film, Coal Country (Geller, 2009), which

they watched on the way to the mine. Furthermore, the participants were impressed by the

reclamation efforts taken by the coal mining company. They observed a reforested section of the

mine as well as a constructed wetland to mitigate the environmental impacts of the mining

operation (Figure 2). Overall, participants remarked that the coal mine was not as bad as they had

expected and had a generally improved perception of coal as an energy source.

Figure 2. Forest (left) and wetland (right) reclamation sites, Oak Hill Mine, Henderson, TX.

After touring Oak Hill Mine, participants proceeded to Martin Creek Steam Electric

Power Plant, which was down the road from the mine. At Martin Creek, energy company

representatives continued the bus tour and described the process of using the coal that was just

mined to generate electricity. Participants followed the coal from its arrival point to the flue gas

stack looming high over the plant (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Martin Creek Steam Electric Power Plant, Henderson, TX.

Participants did not tour the internal structure of the facility, but viewed intake and cool-

down ponds and visually assessed the environmental impact of the power plant. The contrast of

the facility with the environmental reclamation areas of the Oak Hill Mine had a negative

impression on the participants, and the general consensus shifted, yet again, as they witnessed a

less environmentally friendly side of coal power production.

After the tours of Oak Hill and Martin Creek, the participants viewed the documentary

film, Burning the Future: Coal in America (Novack, 2008), which further depicted the effect of

coal mining in the Appalachian Mountain region. The two films provided perspectives of coal

power, which were contrary to the coal-positive presentations of the industry representatives at

the mine and power plant.

Participants debriefed about their experiences at both field sites while considering the

perspectives presented in the documentaries. They used this opportunity to share their own

viewpoints and if and how their perceptions of coal as an energy source had changed. PD

providers emphasized attention to the variables, which must be considered when making

decisions regarding sustainability and environmental costs/benefits of coal-powered energy.

Data Sources and Analysis for Evaluating the PD

The goal of the PD was to increase the teachers’ content knowledge of the various energy

production methods as well as their environmental impacts so that they could evaluate the

relative sustainability of each. To measure the effectiveness of the PD, data were collected from

several sources. First, the participants completed assessments on their knowledge of production

methods (including source of fuel when appropriate) and their perceptions on the environmental

costs of each of the six sources of energy. Specifically, for each type of energy, the participants

were asked: (1) Describe [the type of energy], identify its source, and tell how it is used to

generate power, and (2) What are the environmental “costs” of this type of energy production?

This assessment was administered at the outset of the PD and again after the three-week summer

portion of the PD was concluded. Inductive coding (Thomas, 2006) was utilized to evaluate the

participants’ descriptions of the production methods, and a list, which included the distinct

elements of the participants’ answers, was made for each energy type. These lists of distinct

elements were used to evaluate each participant’s individual answers. Similar methodology was

employed to identify the environmental costs of each energy source and to evaluate individual’s

answers to the second question. Tables 2, 3, and 4 summarize the data from the 10 participants

(of the 16), who completed both the pre- and post-assessments. In addition to the pre- and post-

assessments, the participants also completed periodic PD evaluation surveys at the conclusion of

the summer and throughout the subsequent academic year. Their responses to these surveys

offered further insight into the aspects of the PD that they believed most influenced their

academic and pedagogical growth.

Findings

Aggregate Data for All Energy Types

The participants’ answers to the first questions of the pre- and post-assessments offered

insight into their academic understanding of how the energy sources are used to produce

electricity. Table 2 depicts the number of distinct elements identified for each energy source in

both the pre- and post-assessments. As a group, very little change was detected between the

initial assessment responses and those identified at the conclusion of the PD.

Table 2

Distinct Elements of Description of Each Energy Source Identified by Participants on the Pre-

and Post-Assessments

Energy Source Pre-Assessment Pre- and Post-Assessment

Coal 6 6

Hydroelectric 3 3

Natural Gas 4 5

Nuclear 5 5

Oil 5 6

Wind 2 3

The second questions on the pre- and post-assessments evaluated the participants’

perceptions of the environmental costs of each energy source. Table 3 displays the number of

environmental costs identified for each before and at the conclusion of the PD (pre- and post-).

Table 3

Number of Environmental Costs of Each Energy Source Identified by Participants on the Pre-

and Post-Assessments

Energy Source Pre-Assessment Pre- and Post-Assessment

Coal 8 10

Hydroelectric 5 8

Natural Gas 10 12

Nuclear 9 10

Oil 7 13

Wind 7 10

In contrast to the descriptions of each energy source, the group identified more environmental

costs for all energy sources on the post-assessment. Tables 2 and 3 represent aggregate data. To

reveal individual growth, each participant’s pre- and post-responses were compared. As an

example, Table 4 illustrates the evaluation of individual responses to questions one and two for

coal.

Individual Data for Coal Generated Electricity

With regard to question one, the participants collectively produced six distinct elements

for how coal is used to generate power; they included (1) mined from the earth, (2) various

grades/types of coal exist, (3) coal is burned, (4) heat from burning coal used to boil water and

produce steam, (5) steam turns a turbine, and (6) a generator captures the energy from the turbine

and converts it to electrical energy. No additional answer elements were identified among the

post-assessments. In contrast to this lack of change as a group, there was individual growth.

Eight of the 10 participants demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of coal energy

production at the conclusion of the PD (first two columns of Table 4).

Table 4

Distinct Elements of Description and Number of Environmental Costs of Coal Energy on the

Pre- and Post-Assessments for Each Participant

Description Environmental Costs

Participant Pre-Assessment

(out of 6)

Pre- and Post-

Assessment

(out of 6)

Pre-Assessment

(out of 8)

Pre- and Post-

Assessment

(out of 10)

1 3 5 3 5

2 3 3 4 5

3 2 4 3 5

4 5 5 3 5

5 1 3 4 5

6 4 5 4 6

7 0 1 2 3

8 3 5 2 2

9 4 5 2 4

10 1 4 0 2

For example, Participant 10 began the PD with a very limited understanding of how coal is used

to generate electricity. Her initial response (Figure 4) displays that her understanding only

extended to the fact that coal came from the ground (mined from the earth).

Figure 4. Pre-assessment image depicting Participant 10’s understanding of coal energy.

However, by the end of the PD, her conception was much more developed as demonstrated by

her response to the post-assessment prompt:

Coal is [dug] from underground and sent to a place where they will burn this coal. The

heated coal then turns some turbines that connect to generator. This generator then

creates electricity. (Participant 10, post-assessment)

This response includes four answer elements: mined from the earth, coal is burned, steam turns a

turbine, and a generator captures the energy from the turbine and converts it to electrical

energy.

In the pre-assessments, the participants identified eight environmental costs of coal

power: (1) non-renewable, (2) land degradation, (3) wildlife degradation, (4) greenhouse gas

emissions, (5) air emissions, (6) water pollution, (7) human health impacts, and (8) pollution (not

specified). At the conclusion of the summer PD, the participants identified an additional two

costs: (9) water consumption and (10) emissions from equipment used in mining and processing.

Nine of the 10 participants identified more environmental costs in their post-assessment response

than on the pre-assessment. For example, Participant 1’s pre-assessment response included three

costs and communicated a strong ecocentric perspective, focusing on the limited nature of coal

as a resource (non-renewable) and the negative ecological impacts of coal extraction (land

degradation and wildlife degradation):

Costs include using up a finite amount of product while devastating the landscape. It

ruins the environment and leaves a treeless, animal-less, life-less place behind

(Participant 1, pre-assessment)

Her post-assessment, however, revealed a more developed and authentic understanding of the

environmental impacts.

Costs 1) harms land by defacing it, 2) puts pollutants in air, 3) pollutes water that it uses

to make steam (Participant 1, post-assessment)

This response gives a more tempered description of the landscape degradation resulting from

coal mining (land degradation) and includes reference to the air and water pollution that results

from the combustion of coal at the electric power plant (air emissions and water pollution).

Implications

All 10 participants individually demonstrated growth in their understanding of the energy

production methods and/or the environmental impacts of them. The participants’ responses to the

periodic PD evaluation surveys offer insight into what aspects of the PD were most influential to

them. The focus of the comments fall into three areas: (1) the participants’ own personal

conceptual change regarding energy production and/or sustainability, (2) the participants’

perceptions of the experiential learning aspects of the PD, and (3) ways the participants will

incorporate what they learned in their own teaching.

Conceptual Change

Participant 4 related how the PD helped him see past myths portrayed by polarized

special interest groups and stressed the importance of research before making judgments:

Students having the opportunity to know more than side of a story will make them more

informed in all areas of life and study. They will understand that what they saw on a

commercial is not necessarily the truth... Becoming a researcher of issues and not blindly

believing rhetoric may be one of the more important lessons my students get from me.

(Participant 4)

Participant 8 noted how differing opinions on controversial issues such as energy sustainability

and environmental impact can be valid and have their own strengths and weaknesses depending

on the perspective one takes. She stated that the most important theme that emerged for her

during the PD was

…that with each person we met we heard a different view point of the same story and that

each view point each has its strengths and weaknesses and many times the varying

opinion, facts, and general information contradicts each other. So then we are left with

professionals in their fields, all of whom have their own agenda, and we are left with

muddled information with no clear viewpoint from which to take a stance. (Participant 8)

The partisan, one-sided, and often contradictory opinions presented by the various

interested parties, each of which has some elements of truth to them, had exposed the flaw to

accepting any single representation as fully addressing the issue as hand. While the PD exposed

the participants to this complexity behind energy sustainability, it did not provide them with

absolute answers for the problem. Instead, it fostered in them a need to more fully explore such

issues and look for the multiple truths from multiple perspectives.

Experiential Learning

Many of the participants commented on the experiential nature of the PD and attributed

their own personal gains to the first-hand, onsite approach of the field trips. For instance,

Participant 7 commented on her experiences related to coal-generated electricity.

While visiting the coal mine and power plant I saw the entire process with an

understanding of the end result. I was able to understand which buildings served what

function at the plant and critically examine the nature of the mining process and really

analyze if the cost outweighed the benefit. (Participant 7)

Participant 1 noted how the real-life experiences allowed her to connect to her own community

and place.

Having direct contact with the places and topics we were studying really made them real

to me, took them out of abstraction and paper scenarios to a life experience. ... Not only

did the speakers and site visits make the content more relevant, but it also connected us

to what was happening here in our community, in our place. This is an aspect of place

based education that I really had not explored directly in teaching, or in learning.

(Participant 1)

The participants consistently commented on the positive aspects of the experiential learning and

reflected on their desire to replicate, in some way, the experiences for their own students. While

they felt the on-site instruction was most valuable, they also recognized their own inability to

take their students on such extensive field trips due to time and budgetary constraints. They

maintained, however, that they would do what they could via videos, photos, etc. to virtually take

their students on “visits” in order to bring the material to life for them as well.

Impact on Instruction

Participant 4 summed up the impact of the PD as developing his own knowledge base by

exposing the complexity of energy sustainability, reconsidering some of his previously held

beliefs about energy production, developing a healthy skepticism, and considering his classroom

teaching.

I have to assume that what my students may know about a particular topic will not be

coming from a personal encounter, but from something they saw on TV, in a movie, or an

advertisement. The students I teach will be somewhat like me in that they will accept

certain things as true because they hear it all the time. They have not taken the time to

research these things on their own, and until they begin that process, they will not fully

understand these topics. … I tell my students not to take what they hear at face value, but

to check out the claims they are hearing, and this [PD] year has shown me that I have

not been subscribing to my own teaching. It is my plan to provide an opportunity for

students to challenge what they hear in class or in the world in general. (Participant 4)

Participant 4’s ultimate goal of creating a society of informed decision-makers reflects the

overarching intention of the PD. This finding could be the most important as teachers, who

recognize the folly of accepting as fact politically-charged or one-sided stances on environmental

issues, can modify their teaching to encourage their students to avoid making such mistakes.

Conclusions

Sustainability of energy production is a complex issue, and the politicization of

environmentalism over the last several decades has resulted in public perceptions of energy,

which are often simple and one-sided. The present paper describes a professional development

program, which utilized experiential learning in conjunction with mathematical modeling to

expose inservice science teachers to multiple considerations about the sustainability of distinct

energy sources. The overall intention of the PD was to increase the participants’ awareness of the

complexity of energy sustainability. Participants engaged in a combination of experiences

including onsite field trips, expert lectures, documentary films, podcasts, and print media.

Mathematical modeling was used as a vehicle to allow participants to examine these experiences

and identify the variables, which must be considered when determining the sustainability of each

energy type. Via this pedagogical approach, participants’ individual understanding of energy

production methods and their environmental costs was improved. The participants attributed

their conceptual change to the experiential nature of the instruction, in particular the firsthand

observations made possible through field trips.

Most importantly, perhaps, the participants’ conceptions of environmental and

sustainability education developed as well; many reported the desire to use the same learning

approach in their own classrooms to foster their students understanding of sustainability. If future

PD experiences can further inform teachers about the complexity of sustainability issues, then

teachers can take steps to include on-site (or virtual) instruction, presentation of multiple

perspectives, and critical analysis of any sustainability issues. Such PD experiences can further

prepare science teachers to teach for sustainability in a world where such teacher preparedness is

of such critical importance.

Acknowledgements

The professional development described in this paper was funded through the Texas Higher

Education Coordinating Board/Teacher Quality Enhancement grants program.

References

Baimbridge, M. (2004). Towards a new economics. In Blewitt, J. & Cullingford, C. (Eds.), The

sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education (pp. 166-178). London,

UK: Earthscan.

Boorman, J. (Director/Producer). (1972). Deliverance [Motion picture]. Burbank, CA: Warner

Home Video.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning.

London, UK: Kogan Page.

Brinkmann, A., & Brinkmann, K. (2007). Integration of energy issues in mathematics

classrooms. In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical

modeling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 304-313). Chichester,

UK: Horwood Publishing.

Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865-883.

Caron, F., & Bélair, J. (2007). Exploring university students’ competencies in modeling. In C.

Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modeling (ICTMA 12):

Education, engineering and economics (pp. 120-129). Chichester, UK: Horwood

Publishing.

Cullingford, C. (2004). Sustainability and higher education. In Blewitt, J. & Cullingford, C.

(Eds.), The sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education (pp. pp. 13-23).

London, UK: Earthscan.

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London, UK: The Falmer

Press.

Fox, J. (Director/Producer), Adlesic, T. (Producer), & Gandour, M. (Producer). (2010). Gasland:

Can you light your water on fire? [Motion picture]. Brooklyn, NY: International WOW

Company.

Friedman, T.L. (2008). Hot, flat, and crowded: Why we need a green revolution – and how it can

renew America. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Galbraith, P., Stillman, G., Brown, J., & Edwards, I. (2007). Facilitating middle secondary

modeling competencies. In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.),

Mathematical modeling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 130-

140). Chichester, UK: Horwood Publishing.

Garvey, D. (2013). Only experience can bring us to the truth. Journal of Sustainability

Education, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/2996-2/

Geller, P. (Director/producer) & Evans, M. (Producer). (2009). Coal Country [Motion picture].

Laurel, MD: Evening Star Productions.

Gelpke, B. (Director/producer), McCormack, R. (Director/producer), & Caduff, R. (Co-director).

(2006). A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash [Motion picture]. Zurich, Switzerland: Lava

Productions AG.

Giordano, F.R., Weir, M.D., & Fox, W.P. (2003). A first course in mathematical modeling.

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Haines, C.R., & Crouch, R. (2010). Remarks on a modeling cycle and interpreting variables. In

R. Lesh, P.L. Galbraith, C.R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’

mathematical competencies (pp. 145-154). New York, NY: Springer.

Hilborn, R., & Mangel, M. (1997). The ecological detective: Confronting models with data.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kolb, D.A., (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Maaβ, K. (2006). What are modeling competencies? ZDM. The International Journal of

Mathematics Education, 38(2), 113-142.

Medrick, R. (2013). Experiential education for change. Journal of Sustainability Education, 5(1).

Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/2996-2/ Moon, J.A. (1999). Reflection in learning & professional development: Theory & Practice.

London, UK: Kogan Page.

Moscardini, A.O. (1989). The identification and teaching of mathematical modelling skills. In

W. Blim, M. Niss, & I. Huntley (Eds.), Modelling, applications and applied problem

solving: Teaching mathematics in a real context (pp. 36-42). Chichester, UK: Ellis

Horwood Limited.

Munakata, M. (2006). A little competition goes a long: Holding a mathematical modeling contest

in your classroom. Mathematics Teacher, 100(1), 30-39.

Nichols, M. (Director/Producer) & Hausman, M. (Producer). (1983). Silkwood [Motion picture].

Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox.

Novack, D. (Director/producer), Rosenfeld, D. (Producer), Follini (Producer), & Zoullas

(Producer). (2008). Burning the Future: Coal in America [Motion picture]. New York,

NY: New Video Group, Inc.

Pollak, H. (2007). Mathematical modeling – A conversation with Henry Pollak. In W. Blum,

P.L. Galbraith, H.W., Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in

mathematics education: The 14th

ICMI study (pp. 109-120). New York, NY: Springer.

Pollak, H.O. (2011). What is mathematical modeling? In H. Gould, D.R. Murray, A. Sanfratello,

& B.R. Vogeli (Eds.), Mathematical modeling handbook (pp. vi-vii). Bedford, MA:

COMAP.

Saylan, C. & Blumstein, D.T. (2011). The failure of environmental education [and how we can

fix it]. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. (2008). The Energy Report 2008. Retrieved from

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/

Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.

American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.

Author Photos

Mark Bloom

Sarah Quebec Fuentes

Kelly Feille

Molly Holden

Photo to represent article