In the Classroom
Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning through an Environmental Water Quality Study Lorie Juhl,* Kaye Yearsley, and Andrew J. Silva Department of Chemistry, Eastern Idaho Technical College, Idaho Falls, ID 83404-5788 Project-based, cooperative learning in chemistry classes is becoming more widely implemented and publicized (1–4). McGraw-Hill recently published a general chemistry laboratory manual by Melanie Cooper featuring cooperative project laboratories (5). Kenneth Hughes developed a unique aquarium project for quantitative analysis, featured in Analytical Chemistry, which has evolved into an interactive on-line enterprise (6, 7). A desire to implement major curriculum changes and successes with project-based learning reported in publications and presentations encouraged the development of an interdisciplinary environmental water quality project for students in two technician education programs at Eastern Idaho Technical College (EITC). Since the primary goal of technical education is to prepare employees for the work force, use of projects is desirable. They offer applied learning that more closely simulates responsibilities, interpersonal skills, and organizational skills required of professionals in the workplace. The project implemented at EITC was designed to enhance training and employability for students in chemical and environmental technician associate degree programs through an environmental project requiring sampling and analysis of a local river for organic, inorganic, and fecal contaminants. Four project objectives were identified as a means to enhance the educational experience and employability of our students: provide experience on analytical instrumentation for organic compounds (gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry, GC/MS), resolve relevant problems through interdisciplinary group interactions, provide experience with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sampling and analysis procedures, and cooperate with state agencies/private organizations. Audience Students involved in the project are enrolled in their final semester of the chemical technician or environmental technician associate degree program and have successfully completed course work in general chemistry and introductory organic chemistry. Other completed courses relevant to the project include Analytical Chemistry (lecture and laboratory) and Biotechnology, taken by chemical technician students, and Contaminant Migration in the Environment, taken by environmental technician students. The project requires combining Environmental Chemistry (a chemical technician course) and Sampling and Analysis (an environmental technician course) during 11 weeks of the spring semester. Project Description
Overview Groups of students develop a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) based on EPA standards. Following this plan, they sample and analyze water from various sites along the *Corresponding author. Address: 1110 Spruce St., Pocatello, ID 83201.
Table 1. Example of Schedule Important Dates
Assignment
February 15
Project assigned
February 20–March 19
Work on SAP
March 21
Draft SAP due
April 2–4
Finalize SAP
April 9
Final SAP due
April 9–May 7
Sample collection Analysis report writing
May 14
Written report due
entire length of Henry’s Fork of the Snake River. This river originates from springs in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and flows approximately 100 miles through lands of varied use before it empties into the Snake River. Students are assigned to groups of five or six that include representatives from both programs; environmental technician students bring expertise in sampling protocols to the group and chemical technician students bring sample analysis experience to the group. Students complete the project in four phases: preparation of an SAP that includes project objectives, implementation of the SAP through field analysis and sample collection, laboratory analysis of samples, and data compilation and evaluation, culminating in a final report assessing the health of the river based on analysis results. This format focuses student energies on planning and implementing a large-scale project under strict time constraints. Table 1 shows a sample schedule for the project. The final report requires students to evaluate data, develop theses regarding the water quality of the river, and assess possible sources of contamination.
Phase Descriptions/Requirements When the project is assigned, students receive a project description detailing the required analyses, required documentation, and grading criteria for all phases of the project. Faculty have preselected specific analyses to reflect the capstone nature of this project in the students’ education and to provide students with data that indicate the health of the river and natural river trends. Analysis requirements are as follows: GC/MS analysis for 12 target pesticides following EPA 525.2; ion chromatograph (IC) analysis of nitrates, sulfates, and phosphates; pH; conductivity; total alkalinity; hardness; total dissolved and total suspended solids; biological oxygen demand (BOD); and total and fecal coliform bacteria. Procedures for EPA 525.2, total and fecal coliforms, and BOD are provided by instructors. Students independently identify appropriate procedures from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water (8) or other reputable sources for all other analyses. In addition to the SAP and final report, each group is required to submit one logbook, laboratory notebooks, and Chain of Custody (COC) forms at the conclusion of the project. Logbooks provide information about sampling such as site
Vol. 74 No. 12 December 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
1431
In the Classroom description, site conditions, date, time, number of samples collected, identity of sampler and recorder, and on-site analysis data. Laboratory notebooks provide information about analyses including analyst, date, reference to procedure, observations, blanks, replicates, results. COC forms document proper transfer of samples in the field and laboratory. SAP development constitutes the first phase of the project and is performed by each group with input from one or more individuals at Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Bureau of Laboratories. Faculty and a DEQ representative review and grade each group’s project objectives, and SAP. From these, faculty select one set of objectives and one SAP to be used by all groups as the project SAP. Faculty also designate sections of river in the SAP that student groups will sample and analyze. Upon dissemination of this document, phase two of the project begins. During phase two each group selects a section of river to sample, performs field analyses, collects samples, and follows appropriate COC procedures. Approximate sample locations are outlined in the SAP, but exact locations depend on accessibility. At the sample location students perform pH analysis, the only field test required, and record results in their logbook. Sample collection requirements found by students in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water (8) are also detailed in the SAP. They describe the manner in which samples will be collected, the type of collection vessel in which they must be stored, necessary sample preservatives, and the temperature at which the sample must be kept. COC forms in this phase document proper sample transfer from field to laboratory. Phase three involves analysis of samples and is the most labor-intensive portion of the project because each group must perform all analyses. Typically, group members divide analyses so each member conducts one or two procedures on all samples collected by the group. (Faculty do not suggest this strategy, but every year students select it.) Individuals schedule their analyses with instructors in an effort to reduce “bottle necks” and guarantee availability of chemicals and supplies. The most difficult procedure and one that occasionally creates scheduling problems is EPA 525.2 and subsequent GC/MS analysis. It contains numerous sample pretreatment and concentration steps where contamination may occur or samples may be destroyed. Phase four requires preparation of a final report written in the format of a formal scientific paper. The paper must discuss analysis results for the entire river in context with the objectives set forth in the SAP. Each group makes their data available to the entire class and writes an interpretive report based on the collective data.
Assessment Student performance is assessed using five parameters. Table 2 lists these parameters and the percentage each contributes to the project grade. Peer evaluation is the only grade earned individually; all other grades are based on group performance. The project grade is 50% of the final grade for the course in which the students are enrolled. To help reduce bias, instructors distribute grading responsibilities amongst themselves. Final grades are tabulated and reviewed during a group meeting of instructors prior to submission.
Table 2. Criteria for Project Grade Contribution Assessment Parameter (%) Sampling and Analysis Plan 25 Field logbook and COC forms Laboratory analysis and notebook
20
Final report
25
Peer evaluation
10
during the analysis phase of the project, since 7–8 different procedures are being performed at the same time. Typically, when the class size is greater than 24, two faculty monitor the wet chemistry laboratory to answer questions and assist with problems while a third faculty is doing the same in the instrument laboratory. When classes are smaller, one faculty member in the instrument laboratory and one in the wet chemistry laboratory is sufficient. Project Outcomes The project has been successfully performed for two years, and portions of it have been carried out for four years. Several project outcomes have been identified during this time. 1. Students enhance their technical skills through new techniques introduced with the project. 2. Numerous technical and employability skills are reviewed during the project. 3. Chemical technician students gain experience in SAP preparation and sample collection. 4. Environmental technician students gain enhanced understanding of chemical analyses. 5. All students experience typical frustrations associated with performing a large project: contaminated samples, instrument failure, trouble shooting and repair of equipment, communication problems, and conflict resolution. 6. All students must interpret a large quantity of data, seek trends in it, and relate it to a primary objective.
New technical skills and technical skills reviewed during the project are listed in the box below.
Technical Skills Required by Project
New Skills BOD analysis EPA 525.2 (new for environmental technicians)
Administering Project The project is overseen by three faculty who share responsibilities during the 11 weeks of student work. No formal lecture occurs during this time. Faculty primarily assist in the laboratories, but may help with sampling and custody transfer as necessary. Laboratory duty is intense
1432
20
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 12 December 1997
Conductivity determination Total dissolved & suspended solids Alkalinity determination Development of COC SAP development
Reviewed Skills pH determination Hardness titration Total & fecal coliform IC analysis: nitrates, sulfates, phosphates Literature searching Data analysis
In the Classroom Employability skills utilized during the project include computer graphing, word processing, oral and written communication, organization, and conflict resolution. Experiences provided by the project require students to work cooperatively, communicate, solve problems, and meet deadlines in a more relevant environment than that which standard lecture and laboratories courses provide. Observations
Faculty The project required greater organization, effort, and planning from instructors than traditional teaching methods. Even with detailed planning, uncontrollable variables presented themselves and added to the realism of the project. For example, in the spring, Empore disks used for pretreating water samples for subsequent GC/MS pesticide analysis became clogged with ultrafine silt from river water samples. Samples run during fall semester using the same disks and procedure did not have the problem. Suggestions from the disk manufacturer and chemists at the Idaho Bureau of Laboratories did not solve it. Since the river is sampled by students in the spring when flow is greatly increased owing to snow melt, we concluded that runoff was adding ultrafine particulates that had not been present in the fall. This unforeseen problem required that we reduce the volume of river water filtered through the Empore disk, thereby minimizing clogging. A positive aspect of this and other smaller problems encountered is the opportunity for students to observe and take part in realistic problem solving. Several key observations were made by faculty that may be of specific interest for others wishing to add projects to their curriculum. 1. Establishing detailed grading criteria and distributing them to students when the project is introduced aids students throughout the project and makes grading significantly easier. 2. Projects require greater independence and self-motivation from students owing to enhanced responsibilities. This often results in complaints by students. 3. Group leaders emerge who oversee implementation, motivate their teammates, and ascertain that deadlines and requirements are met. 4. Faculty work intensely during the analysis phase of the project, when they assist students who are performing the required analysis procedures.
Students Students responded to numerous questions at the completion of the project to help us assess its effectiveness as a teaching tool. Some of these questions are listed below with examples of responses given by students. Question: How did you like the interdisciplinary aspect of the project? Some Responses (81% positive, 19% negative): “It did help to combine the Enviro. techs with the Chem techs for the project. The Enviro techs knew more about the SAP & sampling and the Chem techs knew more about the lab aspect. It worked out great.”
“If all people aren’t dedicated, one or two people ends up doing most of the work.”
Question: Was interaction with outside agencies beneficial? Why or why not? Responses (91% positive, 9% ambivalent): Most students commented that they appreciated the wealth of information provided by the state agencies and a private watchdog organization called the Henry’s Fork Foundation. They felt interaction with these agencies added realism to the project. In one student’s words, “It makes the project more real instead of being just a big school assignment.”
Often, students expressed concern about meeting analysis deadlines and frustration with time required to complete analyses, particularly when the GC/MS did not calibrate properly or samples became contaminated. However, every group completed all the required analyses in the time allotted. Students learned to organize their time and use it more efficiently as the project progressed. Summary The project provided a unique mechanism to introduce and review important technical skills, communication skills, computer skills, and interpersonal skills necessary for employment. The interdisciplinary nature and extensive scope of this project gave students a sense of the responsibilities, independence, and self motivation that will be necessary to succeed in their future careers. Difficulties such as sample contamination and calibration problems provided students with a valuable taste of the true scientific experience. Interaction with personnel from state agencies and the Henry’s Fork Foundation added a new dimension of realism to the student’s education. Our experience suggests that an extensive, interdisciplinary project offers a challenging and meaningful alternative for delivering critical science skills and experiences to students. Acknowledgments This project was made possible by funding from NSF grant DUE-9451053 and through the generous financial contributions of William Maeck. Literature Cited 1. Maier, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 643–646. 2. Varco-Shea, T. C.; Darlington, J.; Turnbull, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 536–538. 3. Juhl, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 72–77. 4. Harman, J. G.; Anderson, J. A.; Nakshima, R. A.; Shaw, R. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 641–645. 5. Cooper, M. Cooperative Chemistry Laboratory Manual; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1996. 6. Hughes, K. Anal. Chem. 1993, 65, 883A–889A. 7. Chemecology 1996, May, 7. 8. American Public Health Association; American Water Works Association; Water Environment Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed.; Franson, M. A. H., Ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC , 1995.
Vol. 74 No. 12 December 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
1433
