How might environmental education foundations engage 1st and 2nd grade students remotely in an era of social distancing?
Note: I developed this project during a Harvard University course on Designing Educational Media. If you’d like the short project summary, check out the embedded PDF to the right. If you’d like the more in-depth, academic explanation of design decisions and learning theory rationale, please keep reading!
About the product
Product description
A Day in the Life of Piper the Piping Plover is a multi-part, interactive lesson designed for 1st and 2nd grade learners. The learners follow Piper, a juvenile, endangered piping plover, who teaches them about how humans can impact the species around them. It’s designed to align with the Next Generation Science Standard MS-ESS3 Earth and Human Activity: Human Impacts on Earth Systems.
How it works:
Distributed by an environmental education (EE) center: The national response to COVID-19 has prevented many of environmental education (EE) centers from conducting programming over the last year. Environmental educators have sought creative ways to interact with their previously in-person audiences, including by video-calling into classrooms. The EE center would share the first four modules with the learners’ teacher.
4 of 5 modules managed by the 1st or 2nd grade teacher: The teacher can then use these four modules as lessons the learners can complete independently during class time. Each lesson would take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. The first module is a foundational module that teaches students how to identify bird species. The remaining three focus on aspects of a bird’s life (i.e., habitat, food, and migration) and describe how human actions affect them.
Final module features video call by EE center: After students have completed these four modules, the fifth class would be a video-call visit from an EE center staff member. They would build on the concepts learned in the course and teach learners about a local endangered species. Although an endangered piping plover is the focus of the first four modules, the EE center staff would teach about a different endangered species. This helps the learners integrate what they’ve learned previously into a different context, described further in Taxonomy Evaluation below.
Learning objectives
The big idea that students should walk away with is that human action can have a major impact on the species around us. Specifically, the three learning objectives are:
Comprehending—Learners will be able to describe how human activities contribute to the endangered status of piping plovers.
Applying—Learners will digitally manipulate environments to create a healthier habitat for piping plovers.
Synthesizing—Learners will examine 2-3 aspects of their daily life that may have negative impacts on another species in their local ecosystem.
Evaluation approach
As an interactive, digital lesson, evaluation would be built into the product itself. EE center staff, or the learners’ teacher, can see which comprehension check questions students most frequently get wrong. This would enable them to focus on those areas in follow-up conversations or during the fifth lesson with the EE center staff.
Design process
At a high level, I followed the below steps. While I greatly benefited from discussing this project with my peers, I conducted all of the below activities independently.
Define my topic of interest.
Define my learning objectives.
Use backwards design principles to identify a tentative approach to the learning.
Conduct a focus group to assess the validity of the approach.
Storyboard the materials.
Draft a functioning prototype.
Conduct usability testing.
Update the design.
Above: Final project summary
Below: Module 1 of the course.
Learning theory integration
When planning to integrate learning theories, I evaluated the level of knowledge of the learners, thought processing demands, and desired outcomes. I focused on infusing cognitivism because, in the cognitivist theory, “learning involves the reorganization of experiences, either by attaining new insights or changing old ones” (Kelly, 2012). I evaluated the level of knowledge of the learners and predicted it would be minimal because the learners would be so young. They likely wouldn’t have a knowledge base to draw from, which indicated more open-ended learning theories would not be as effective. When reflecting on desired outcomes for the course, I rationalized that it made more sense to lead the learners to single-answer learnings, rather than encouraging them to generate broad, new ideas that may or may not help them understand how humans impact the environment. However, generating broad ideas about human impact did have a place in this lesson.
Emphasis on cognitivism
Facilitating connections: I grouped the learnings into five different sections, which helps the learner make clear connections about what is being communicated in the different modules.
Reinforcement through alliteration: I chose Piper as the main character’s name. Like with the use of mnemonics, which are popular in cognitivism, the alliteration between Piper and piping helps learners remember the bird is called a piping plover.
Extending understanding through categorization: A key cognitivist decision I made was to have the EE center staff teach about a different animal during the fifth part of the lesson. After following Piper’s experience for the previous four lessons, it’s possible that the learners might mistakenly limit their understanding of human impact to just piping plovers. By having the EE center staff teach about a different endangered animal, it helps the learners extend their understanding by categorizing similarities and differences between the explanations of the different animals’ circumstances.
Key Design Choices
EDucational design decisions
Storytelling: In module 2, which focuses on habitat, the lesson incorporates a significant amount of storytelling. My hope was that, as explained in Harvard Business Publishing, “learning which stems from a well-told story is remembered more accurately, and for far longer, than learning derived from facts and figures” (Borris, 2017). In usability testing, this appeared to be the case—learners remembered the module 2 story quite vividly and were able to connect the learnings from it to other points in the lesson (e.g., because piping plovers blend into their environment, they can be susceptible to accidental injury from humans).
Reinforcing learnings through video recaps: As explained by one of my usability study participants, sometimes new readers may be focusing so intensely on how to read the words they’re encountering that they actually miss the message. Additionally, even learners who may be using the narration feature of the modules may be overwhelmed by the amount of new information. At the end of each module, I embedded a video recap with “Ranger Christina.” In the video, I recapped the major learnings associated with the section or helped explain concepts that might be too difficult to grasp through written text alone. As explained in WebAIM’s “Introduction to Web Accessibility,” this approach aligns with considering the different cognitive needs of learners (Center for Persons with Disabilities, n.d.). As with many accessibility concepts, designing something that is considerate of users with unique needs can benefit a wider array of learners than most designers realize.
Comprehension checks: In line with the rationale behind producing the video recaps, I also integrated comprehension checks throughout the modules. As explained in Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey’s summary of Checking for Understanding, “students aren't always self-regulated learners. They may not be aware of what they do or do not understand” (Fisher & Frey, 2014). After sharing new information (e.g., audio of the piping plover’s call), I would ask the learner to engage with it in some way (e.g., describe the plover’s call as high or low, short or fast, etc.). This would help the learner realize if they were paying attention to what they were learning enough to correctly answer these checks.
USER EXPERIENCE decisions
Below are two specific user experience design choices I made throughout the project:
Streamlined visuals: In line with Jakob Nielsen’s 10 general principles for interface design, I strove to “ensure that the visual elements of the interface support the user's primary goals” (Nielsen, 1994). I kept extraneous visuals to a minimum and made the most prominent visuals on each slide the ones that were necessary for moving through the lesson. I visually prioritized the text that shared the learning content, then interactive buttons, and then navigation controls. I kept additional visuals quite subtle unless they directly reinforced the message.
Using the segmenting principle: In addition to breaking the overall course up into five segments, I also designed the course so that the learner could move through the course at their own speed. I did not build in specific timings that they would need to follow, rather giving them control of the forward and back buttons. This is in line with Richard E. Mayer’s Research-Based Principles for Designing Multimedia Instruction, which explains that “people learn more deeply when a multimedia message is presented in learner-paced segments rather than as a continuous unit” (Mayer, 2014). I felt this was particularly important with my audience because some learners might be using the course to practice reading.
INTEGRATING ACCESSIBILITY
While the current prototype incorporates some accessible elements, a future iteration could incorporate significantly more. Below are two highlighted accessibility features that I’ve considered thus far:
Redundant sensory experiences: I sought to make sure each interaction could be engaged with through at least two senses. This way, a learner who couldn’t rely on a particular sense, such as sight, could use another sense, such as hearing, and still participate meaningfully. Fortunately, this redundancy is inherent in this learning tool because of the affordance for students to use narration or practice their reading. If a learner can’t rely on visually reading the text, they can use the narration to still participate meaningfully.
How it could be improved: In a future iteration, I would need to confirm that each screen and each interaction can be used either exclusively visually or exclusively auditorily. I would also want to assess how the lesson works for learners using a screen-reader, as well as for learners who may have mobility challenges and may be relying on assistive technology like sip-and-puff tools.
Color usage: I used dark blue (#064789) for most of the text in the lesson. I confirmed with the WebAIM Contrast Checker (Center for Persons with Disabilities, n.d.) that this color had enough contrast against a white background. It scored as 9.25:1, above the minimally viable threshold of 4:5:1 for normal text. Through my usability testing, I was informed by a professional designer that the light pink (#ddc4dd) I was using to highlight text would be problematic for learners with dichromatic red-blind color blindness. This is reaffirmed by the Coblis Color Blindness Simulator (Human-Computer Interaction Resource Network, 2001). These learners would view it as blue. I revised the visual treatment so that, rather than using the pink outline, I used an orange (#de6449) highlight that passed the contrast checker when used in large text or graphical objects. By using a highlight, it would be visually distinct—even in black and white—without compromising legibility.
There are many other ways to make this product accessible to a wide array of learners. In a future iteration, I would do a comprehensive evaluation using the POUR method (i.e., perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust) (Center for Persons with Disabilities, n.d.). I would also embed captions into all of the videos, among others.
EVALUATION: FINK’s Taxonomy of significant learning
To assess how effectively I’ve designed this product, I’ve evaluated A Day in the Life of Piper the Piping Plover using Fink’s Taxonomy. This taxonomy promotes the notion that learning does not need to progress hierarchically through taxons; rather being strong in one aspect helps the learner grapple with other aspects (The Peak Performance Center, n.d.). Below are explanations of how I addressed (or considered) each taxon: Note: All quoted material is from The Peak Performance Center.
Foundational knowledge: This level focuses on “understanding and remembering information and ideas.” Prior to unpacking more complex concepts in modules 2-5, I focused the first module on foundational information about piping plovers (i.e., bird identification). I continued to reinforce key points about plovers throughout the subsequent modules and used short comprehension checks to ensure students remembered foundational points. With each new concept, I assumed the learners would have no knowledge base to operate from. I took care to define terminology that would be new and repeatedly drill the students on this new information through comprehension checks.
Application: This level focuses on “developing critical, creative, or practical thinking skills.” This would most effectively be addressed by the fourth module, migration, which I didn’t have an opportunity to build out during class. In this module, I’d like to incorporate an interactive game in which the learner would need to create an ideal home for Piper and her family. First, they would need to pick a place without hotels or houses, like they would learn in module 4. They would then put fencing around the area to protect the habitat from human disturbance, like they learned in module 2. They could clear the beach of human litter, which would keep predatory animals away, which they would learn in module 3. There would be no right answer to how they create their home for Piper, though there might be hints embedded in the game. This would help them apply what they learned in a more open-ended exploratory way.
Integration: This level focuses on “making [connections] between information, ideas, perspectives, people, or realms of life.” I focused significantly on integration during the design of this product because I believe it is a key component of the cognitivist approach. One minor example of integration was when Piper’s aunt explains that their camouflage is akin to when humans wear camouflage clothing in the woods. My hope was that moments like that would help students connect with Piper, recognizing similarities between humans and piping plovers. In addition to the in-lesson integration, I designed the at-home activities to help learners explore the concepts they learned in the lesson in their own local environment.
Human dimension: This level focuses on “learning about oneself and others.” I didn’t utilize this taxon as intentionally as some of the others. However, one might argue that anthropomorphizing animals can help learners engage in the human dimension because it helps them establish relationships with other species. Anthropomorphizing can be considered problematic in the EE realm because it draws unrealistic parallels between humans and other species. However, when working with young learners, anthropomorphizing can help learners empathize with creatures they might otherwise not.
Caring: This level focuses on “developing new feelings, interests, or values” and getting learners to “care about something in a new way.” I hope that my choice of animal helps learners with this level of learning. As explained previously, I chose to use a bird species because they are one of the most ubiquitous animal classes in the world. No matter where students live, they have birds in their area. This would theoretically enable learners to connect what they’re learning about Piper with the birds in their neighborhood. However, I wanted to very carefully select which bird species to focus on. Some birds can be quite scary (e.g., crows) or gross (e.g., vultures). Piping plovers are often perceived as adorable, as reinforced by the results of my usability tests. They have familial relationships children can relate to because they’re reared by their parents. They demonstrate interesting behaviors, such as parental broken wing displays to lure predators away. By hopefully crafting learning moments that might feel familiar to the children, such as trying to get their parent’s attention, I hoped to help learners engage and care about this other species.
Learning how to learn: This level focuses on “becoming a better student, inquiring about a subject, becoming self-directed learners.” While I didn’t specifically design for this level, my hope is that the more open-ended, analog activities (e.g., observing birds in the learner’s neighborhood) would help students become more self-directed.
Bibliography
Borris, V. (2017, December 20). What Makes Storytelling So Effective for Learning? Harvard Business Publishing. Retrieved October 13, 2020, from https://www.harvardbusiness.org/what-makes-storytelling-so-effective-for-learning/
Center for Persons with Disabilities. (n.d.). Contrast Checker. WebAIM.org. Retrieved November, 2020, from https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
Center for Persons with Disabilities. (n.d.). Introduction to Web Accessibility. WebAIM. https://webaim.org/intro/
Center for Persons with Disabilities. (n.d.). WebAIM's WCAG 2 Checklist. WebAIM. Retrieved December, 2020, from https://webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for Your Classroom, 2nd Edition. ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/115011/chapters/Why-Check-for-Understanding%C2%A2.aspx
Human-Computer Interaction Resource Network. (2001). Coblis—Color Blindness Simulator. color.blindness.com. Human-Computer Interaction Resource Network
Kelly, J. (2012, September). Learning Theories. The Peak Performance Center. Retrieved September 7, 2020, from https://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educational-learning/learning/theories/
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Research-based principles for designing multimedia instruction. Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum, 59-70.
Nielsen, J. (1994, April 24). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
The Peak Performance Center. (n.d.). Taxonomy of Significant Learning. The Peak Performance Center. https://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educational-learning/thinking/blooms-taxonomy/taxonomy-of-significant-learning/