Applied Panarchy in Environmental Science (APES)
Advanced Placement Environmental Science (APES)
Google Classroom Code: 5dfn6qeb
Applied Panarchy in Environmental Science (APES) is a student-centered capstone science class with the goal of being an empowered citizen of a sustainable community. Environmental Science is a relatively young field but was founded on a tradition of transdisciplinary thinking.
Continuing in this tradition, Unit 1: Transdisciplinary Thinking, begins with a “The Musical Seats” game as a way to evaluate students' ability to act as empowered citizens of a sustainable community. In exploring their shortcomings they derive sustainable and unsustainable mental models (Cloud Institute 2011). This leads to questions of resilience which are examined through the lens of philosophy, math, science, and art. The strengths and weaknesses of each ‘way of knowing’ combined with a case study of the historical traditions of Environmental Science allow students to derive transdisciplinary thinking (Carson 1962; Naess 1973; Wilson 1998; Cloud Institute 2011, Kimmer 2013, Carroll 2016). These tools are then applied to the great problem of our age - global climate change. Students are asked to become experts in the causes, consequences , and challenges in order to see the opportunities the problem of climate change presents, echoing back to the musical seats game. Lastly, students explore a variety of transdisciplinary perspectives on the subject to inspire them into action including indigenous leaders, youth climate activists, and relevant philosophers. Best summarized by Paul Hawkin in a 2009 Speech, “If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand the data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse.” Students apply their complex understanding in a group based assessment prompted by a fictional short story, Shirley Jackson’s The Intoxicated (1949). Importantly, this assessment format will be used at the culmination of each unit to both ground students thinking in a transdisciplinary context, as well as to construct a portfolio of story telling entry points for students to effectively communicate complex ideas to people outside of the classroom community at the conclusion of the course.
In Unit 2: Adaptive Cycle, students will apply this transdisciplinary methodology to natural phenomena. In keeping with the tradition of Darwin and Dobzhansky, students review the key claims of the modern synthesis and acquire the true meaning of “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Darwin, 1859; Dobzhansky 1937, 1973, Mayr 1942). Importantly students will develop the quantitative tools to uncover Dobzhansky’s dilemma, ‘selection acts to diminish genetic variation’ (Eldredge 2008). This thinking closely mirrored that of a Holling (1973) who was grappling with similar concepts in community ecology and the interplay between stability and resilience. These questions lingered historically for these scientists and will for students as they use quantitative tools of population ecology to derive Island Biogeography (MacArthur & Wilson 1967), r-and K- selection (MacArthur & Wilson 1967; Pianka 1970), and the idea of biological entities best summarized as the N-dimensional hypervolume of the Hutchinson Niche concept (1957). Still grappling with concepts of stability and resilience, students will derive and leverage historical experiments on ecological succession to derive the touch stone ecological concept (Buell Small 1958; Li, 2016; Whittaker 1989). Using the representations of successional pathways pioneered by Whittaker (1989), students will explore the rich ecological tapestry of NJ and corresponding historical community ecological experiments (Paine 1969, Whittaker 1989, Ripple & Bescheta 2011) as a way to explore the variables of resilience, potential, and connectedness changing over time. Lastly and most importantly, students will derive the adaptive cycle of Holling and Gunderson (2002) by comparing these three variables to each other in a three dimensional graph. These complex topics are summarized in an transdisciplinary exploration of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax (1971).
In Unit 3: Panarchy, students must first derive system level thinking tools such as indicators, interconnectedness, causality, feedback loops, emergent properties, and system mapping (Acaroglu 2017). This is accomplished through the examination of the Atmosphere, Hydrosphere, Geosphere, and Biosphere, the ‘-spheres of the Earth’, under the essential question of how these systems contribute to the resilience of the Earth. Pedagogically, this is achieved through a “game” complete with character creation, leveling systems, power ups, random number generated rewards. In short, students have unlimited attempts to answer free response questions in increasing levels of difficulty with only the guidance of immediate scoring feedback. As complexity increases throughout the game, students will begin to study systems consisting of multiple negative feedback loops of varying strengths, and scales interconnected with multiple positive feedback loops of varying strengths, scales, and directions. In grappling with this question, students explore mutli-scale adaptive cycles and the ‘revolt’ and ‘remember’ connections between them to derive panarchy (Holling & Gunderson 2002). The game concludes with integrated case studies where students must demonstrate individual mastery of panarchy and other system thinking tools in novel contexts. At the end of the unit students submit a portfolio demonstrating expertise across all -spheres and in transdisciplinary examples of “A Sound Thunder" by Ray Bradbury (1952) and “He-y Come on Out-!” by Shinichi Hoshi (1989).
In Unit 4: Social Ecological Systems, Students are given several opportunities to reflect on their growth and complexity of their own thinking. The first of these opportunities provides students a chance to explore their core values. In the first lesson, students are unknowingly confronted with the “quasi-fascist ethnonationalist” (Southern Pocerty Law Center 2024) thinking of Garrett Hardin (1968) through a traditional Tragedy of the Commons lab. They then compare Hardin’s thinking with Nobel prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom’s thinking who quickly exposes the simplicity and shallowness of the solutions Hardin provides (1990, 2007). Students reflect on the experience in the free writing exercise that asks them to hold a mirror to their beliefs and core values, and recognize who they are at their core. From here, students will explore increasingly complex case studies, as they are finally equipped to fulfill the namesake of the curriculum, and apply panarchy. The first of these case studies are bite sized and explore corporate colonialism, wealth inequality, and deceptive business practices to name a few. For instance it is important to remember that this recycling campaign was funded by plastic companies to sell more plastic at the expense of human health and well being. Students are asked to explore their stance or opinion to these case studies through a second free writing exercise again asking them to hold a mirror to themselves. From here students will explore more complex case sustainable and unsustainable case studies related to land use and derive the social-ecological systems model. This model was inspired by panarchical thinking (Berkes & Folke 2000; Osturm 2007). Social Ecological Systems (SESs) encourage users to identify and describe the relationships between human and natural systems in a codified framework that “are non-linear in nature, cross-scale in time and in space, and have an evolutionary character…with critical feedbacks across temporal and spatial scales.” Ostrum (2007). Students are asked to empathize with characters from these systems, in an interactive Storytelling Soiree and free writing that focuses on windows to other experiences. Next, students will explore their most detailed case studies using this SES framework in the system pathology panel. Students answer the question ‘What should be remembered about the failures of the past’. There is a presentation of facts, and robust panel discussion that focuses around asking the right questions, questions on behalf of those that do not have a voice to do so. This culminates in a fourth free write that asks students to look outside themselves and their own impulses in another window prompt. It is important to note that the selection of these case studies was driven by two primary factors. Firstly, they are selected to facilitate the free writes in accordance with design thinking goals. “[Design] is about developing one’s core values and character as a designer and applying those in appropriate ways to the situations at hand” (Nelson & Stolterman 2012). Secondly, It was the intention of the authors that this unit remain flexible to the nuance of topical and local environmental science stories in keeping with the Education for Sustainability standards of both Responsible Local and Global Citizenship as well as a Strong Sense of Place (Cloud Institute 2011). Above all these case studies present historical problems. These problems are not theoretical, some are potentially existential in nature, and require outside of the box thinking to solve. Students' ability to respond is dependent on their ability to identify and leverage their own feelings on the subject, empathize and empower members of the community, and leverage different ways of knowing in addition to their scientific prowess to move towards a more sustainable future. In short, they must be design thinkers. These goals are made explicit in the final lesson of the unit, students are asked to reflect on each of their free writes, and use that as inspiration for last self reflection before graduation. This also is an explicit return to the “You are Brilliant and the Earth is Hiring” assignment from unit 1. Additionally the short story, All Summer in a Day offers a chance to empathize with characters facing existential crisis as well as the feeling of being an outsider (Bradbury 1954).
In Unit 5: Enacting Community, students push the theme of transdisciplinary thinking to the edge of human understanding by asking the question, “What are the relationship(s) between stories, culture, and community?” By delving into these ideas relating to cultural evolution students will repurpose the tools they developed throughout the year to investigate these critical indicators. Students will be evaluated in 2 distinct ways. Firstly, a n-person prisoner's dilemma that will require them to trust and be trusted in the context of being invested in a community. This theoretical practice is then applied in a legacy project. Students will write and perform a play inspired by each of the short stories analyzed throughout the year. The goal of the play is to communicate a deep understanding on a theme determined and judged by alumni and members of the community. Having alumni return is an opportunity for graduates of the program to reconnect and realign to their own legacy. For current students, the play festival is a culmination of an entire year’s worth of thinking that must be summarized into a 15-20 minute play. The nature of devised theater, democratized producing, writing, directing, and acting responsibilities give a final case study of the power of collaboration. Students must be transdisciplinary storytellers on behalf of nature. They must be system and design thinkers, that are invested in a community demonstrating all of the skills required to be empowered citizens.