Innovative Instructional Module Uses Evaluation to Enhance Quality

  • Martha C. Monroe
  • Annie Oxarart
  • Tracey Ritchie
  • Christine Jie Li
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


The instructional module, Southeastern Forests and Climate Change, is an example of innovation in sustainability education. The module was designed for high school science teachers and developed as part of a research project on southern pine productivity in a changing climate. As a result, it combines climate science with pine ecophysiology and economic productivity. It also encourages classroom debate and role playing activities to explore relevant ethical issues. It deftly brings together science education and education for sustainability. The process of developing the instructional module utilized a needs assessment, experimentation, and evaluation which improved program quality. The summative evaluation provided insights about the success of the program. This tight coupling of evaluation and program development created a high quality product that educators are requesting and using.


Climate change Curriculum development STEM Education for sustainable development Environmental education 



We thank the graduate students, teachers, and advisors who helped develop this instructional resource, particularly Stephanie Hall, Kristen Kunkle, and Richard Plate. We also thank our colleagues in the PINEMAP project, especially the PI, Tim Martin. This work was supported by the Pine Integrated Network: Education, Mitigation, and Adaptation project which is a Coordinated Agricultural Project funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Award #2011-68002-30185.


  1. Disinger, J. (2001). K-12 education and the environment: Perspectives, expectations, and practice. The Journal of Environmental Education, 33(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2010). ESD pedagogy: A guide for the perplexed. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellis, A. K., & Stuen, C. J. (1998). The interdisciplinary curriculum. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.Google Scholar
  4. Ernst, J. A., Monroe, M. C., & Simmons, B. (2009). evaluating your environmental education programs: A workbook for practitioners. Washington DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  5. Holdren, J., Marrett, C., Suresh, S. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 5-year strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council: Committee on STEM Education. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
  6. Ireland, J., & Monroe, M. C. (2015). Should we use wood for energy? An education for sustainable development case study. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 14(2), 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jickling, B., & Wals, A. E. J. (2012). Debating education for sustainable development 20 years after Rio. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(1), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, J. T. (2006). A Platform for a shared discourse of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(2), 10–18.Google Scholar
  10. Kopnina, H. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD): The turn away from ‘environment’ in environmental education? Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, C., Monroe, M. C. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of materials on climate change and forests. PINEMAP Research Summary. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Accessed 22 Aug 2016.
  13. McKeown, R., & Hopkins, C. (2003). EE does not equal ESD: Defusing the worry. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. S., Redman, C.L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
  15. Monroe, M. C. (2012). The co-evolution of ESD and EE. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(1), 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Monroe, M. C., Oxarart, A., & Plate, R. (2013). A role for environmental education in climate change for secondary science educators. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monroe, M. C., Hall, S., & Li, C. J. (2016). Can climate change enhance biology lessons? A quasi-experiment. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 15(2), 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newell, W. H. (1992). Academic Disciplines and Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Education: Lessons from the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Miami University, Ohio. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  20. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Sauvé, L., & Berryman, T. (2005). Challenging a “closing circle”: Alternative research agendas for the ESD decade. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 4(3), 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stapp, W. B., & Cox, D. A. (1974). Environmental education activities manual. Dexter, MI: Thomson-Shore.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha C. Monroe
    • 1
  • Annie Oxarart
    • 1
  • Tracey Ritchie
    • 1
  • Christine Jie Li
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Forest Resources and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations