The Campus Ecosystem Model

S. Gregory Tolley, Edwin M. Everham III, Michael R. McDonald, and Mike Savarese

Interdisciplinary teaching, research experience, and active, collaborative strategies have all been identified as practices highly favorable to the learning process. By using the university campus as the focus for the study of the entire watershed within which it is situated, the Campus Ecosystem Model presents a context for incorporating these pedagogical elements into a useful framework for undergraduate science education.

One of the exciting and distinguishing characteristics of Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), which first opened its doors in the fall of 1997, is its embrace of curricular innovation and interdisciplinary learning. To help direct this effort, the university has identified specific learning goals for its students: aesthetic sensibility, community awareness and involvement, culturally diverse perspective, ecological perspective, effective communication, ethical responsibility, information literacy, problem-solving abilities, and technological literacy. These goals are essential building blocks that, once assembled, improve student performance in a range of academic, personal, and professional endeavors.

Against this backdrop we are developing in the College of Arts and Sciences a model for undergraduate education whereby the FGCU campus serves as a focus for the study of the entire watershed within which it is situated, from its freshwater origins downstream to the Gulf of Mexico. The Campus Ecosystem Model (CEM) is an interdisciplinary heuristic that directly supports the development and practice of the ecological perspective learning goal. Moreover, the model can be used to incorporate other university learning goals into the curriculum. As such, it provides FGCU with a valuable tool for accomplishing its educational mission.

The Campus Ecosystem Model

The Campus Ecosystem Model draws attention to the exchange of information between organisms and their environment, to the tracking of matter and energy through the campus ecosystem, and to the linkages that exist between the campus and other ecosystems via the import and export of these properties. The model builds upon previously developed and tested pedagogical practices that connect the learner directly to an ecosystem. These methods include bringing ecology into the classroom through the use of microcosms (e.g., Allard 1994, Marcus 1994) and using the schoolyard as an extension of the science classroom (e.g., Grimes 1995, Allard 1996). The CEM increases the scale and significance of this approach by emphasizing that the university itself is situated within an ecosystem and is both influenced by and influences this system.

Rather than viewing the campus merely as a setting in which education takes place, the model presents the campus as a common text to be studied by both science majors and nonmajors. A deliberate linking of the curriculum to tangible environmental issues within the students’ own backyard provides a genuine foundation in the discipline and reinforces basic principles and problem-solving techniques. This is particularly beneficial for nonscience majors, who may have developed fears or misconceptions about science earlier in their education (Cronin-Jones 1991). The model not only affords students hands-on, real-world experience in the discipline of their choosing, but also integrates discipline-based frameworks by linking multiple courses. Such interdisciplinary approaches, emphasizing research experience as well as active, collaborative learning, have been endorsed by both science educators (Massey 1989; Uno 1990; Kyle et al. 1991; Barr and Tagg 1995; Watson 1999) and national science organizations (NSF 1996; NRC 1997).

Connecting Learners

One of the ways in which the Campus Ecosystem Model is being applied at FGCU is to connect learners within individual classes through the use of collaborative research projects that focus on the campus or adjacent ecosystems. Ecosystems are complex and their study is often best accomplished collaboratively. Real collaboration requires students to be actively involved in the learning process, and as a result provides a greater capacity and potential for learning (Gabelnick et al. 1990; MacGregor 1990). The CEM therefore encourages students to work together to examine specific aspects of ecosystem form and function. This group work not only promotes problem solving, as students with diverse backgrounds work toward a common goal, but also provides an opportunity for experiential learning, which is especially valuable in science education.

By minimizing the distance between the classroom and the field, both the level of required support and the potential for logistical problems are reduced. Moreover, the depth and significance of student projects can be enhanced when they are embedded within a larger, longer-term context. By focusing research on the campus and its surrounding environment, students further develop a sense of place and a sense of belonging to the campus community. Coupled with the changes in environmental values that derive from direct learning experiences in the field (Bogner 1998; Manzanal et al. 1999), this approach can lead to environmental stewardship and increased ethical responsibility.

Example 1: Collegium of Integrated Learning

In the College of Arts and Sciences, we define ecological perspective as “an analytic approach derived from the study of the natural environment and applied to enhance understanding of various natural and socially derived structures and phenomena.” Although cultivated in a number of courses and programs in the natural sciences, this learning goal is assessed college-wide in Issues in Ecology and Environment (IDS 3304), a course in the Collegium of Integrated Learning. The Collegium is a core of courses within the college designed to sustain the interdisciplinary spirit throughout the undergraduate experience in the face of ever increasing specialization.

In Issues in Ecology and Environment, the ecological perspective is used to derive a number of student learning outcomes from which course assessments are constructed. In one of these assessments, student teams focus on specific ecosystems on campus (e.g., cypress swamps, pine flatwoods, hardwood hammocks, lakes, freshwater marshes) (fig. 1) to develop a common vocabulary and conceptual base for exploring ecology and environment (McDonald and Tolley in review). Students define the boundary of their ecosystem and identify key components that enter or exit the system (e.g., sunlight, water, nutrients). They then record their own observations of the types and distributions of plants and animals found in their ecosystem, the behaviors of individual organisms, and the various interactions that occur within and between the living and nonliving components of the system. Teams are further encouraged to revisit their ecosystems often to investigate whether or not they change noticeably over time.

After working together as part of a group to identify the components and structure of each ecosystem and the interactions that occur within it, individual students then compare and contrast their ecosystem with similar systems found in southwest Florida. Analysis is demonstrated both by finding parallel evidence that relates a campus ecosystem to similar systems described in the literature and by sorting and assembling observations and retrieved information in a manner that enables the student to infer meaning about how his or her particular ecosystem operates.

Example 2: Earth Systems Science

The FGCU campus contains a number of both natural and created aquatic and wetland ecosystems (fig. 1). During the fall of 1999, students in Limnology (PCB 4303C) were asked to develop a series of questions meant to enhance their understanding of one of these systems. These questions would serve as the basis for a student-driven, collaborative research project: (1) Are there day/night differences in phytoplankton biomass? (2) Is variation in phytoplankton biomass related to measured differences in water quality? (3) What is the nature of the vertical distribution of phytoplankton biomass?

Figure 1. Map of the FGCU campus and selected ecosystems. The campus represents the upper portion of the watershed and the focal point of the Campus Ecosystem Model.

To address these research questions, students used an in vivo fluorometer to estimate phytoplankton standing crop (biomass) on one of the campus lakes, using chlorophyll concentration as a proxy. Chlorophyll a and various water quality parameters were measured at 1-m depth increments at three stations on the lake. Data were collected both during the day and at night on three separate dates. After conducting these field measurements, students broke into teams and began examining the data. Each team analyzed the data statistically and graphically based on one of the above questions; each student was then responsible for producing and submitting an individual final report. On the final day of class, each team presented the products of its work (e.g., fig. 2) after which the entire class began making connections among the data sets and began synthesizing the results.

Figure 2. Example of student research using the Campus Ecosystem Model. Chlorophyll a concentration was determined at depth for three stations on one of the campus lakes. Note the difference in the vertical distribution of chlorophyll a between day (8:30–10:30 A.M.) and night (8:30–10:30 P.M.).

Connecting the Curriculum

Using the Campus Ecosystem Model to connect the curriculum within the College of Arts and Sciences involves the deliberate collaboration by faculty in order to learn about each other’s courses and how they might be integrated. It is only through such interdisciplinary conversations that potential connections can be identified. For example, one effective way to link courses is to use the output of one course as the input for another, either through direct collaboration or an exchange of data.

The centering of education and research around the campus promotes coordination and collaboration among the faculty through the use of both shared resources and connected learning outcomes. This collaboration promotes professional growth by encouraging faculty to venture beyond their own disciplinary boundaries, picking up additional knowledge and skills in the process. Scholarship benefits as individual faculty assemble a wide range of conceptual models and research tools for use in a more interdisciplinary approach to problem solving. Furthermore, the development of a core of resources and facilities that supports several disciplines simultaneously provides a cost-effective means for the university to sustain learning-through-research, and it promotes cooperation rather than competition among faculty in securing external support.

The following examples illustrate how the CEM is being used to make connections across the curriculum at FGCU. Each involves the use of collaborative research projects that focus on the campus or adjacent ecosystems and each deliberately links students and faculty from different courses. In many cases, the courses thus linked represent not only separate disciplines but also separate academic programs within the College of Arts and Sciences.

Example 1: Interdisciplinary Social Sciences and Environmental Studies Programs

Located on the FGCU campus are textbook examples of hardwood hammocks. These unique habitats, sometimes referred to as tree islands, occur across the south Florida landscape and have been utilized by humans since prehistory. An archaeological site reflecting this relationship is fortuitously located in one of the on-campus hammocks. To incorporate the investigation of this site into the curriculum, Introduction to Archaeology (ANT 2100) and Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Methods (PCB 3460C) are offered concurrently and are linked via collaborative fieldwork. During three field sessions led by faculty from both courses, mixed teams of students conducted a general vegetative survey, identifying and mapping major tree species within each grid, measuring tree diameter at breast height, examining forest canopy structure using densiometers, and coring selected tree species to estimate age. Student teams also measured and mapped elevation and soil moisture content.

Using a common data set, students from each course focus on a particular aspect of the habitation site and are assessed accordingly via course-specific instruments. Those enrolled in ecology examine the spatial characteristics of the ecosystem and how these characteristics respond to changes in elevation, especially with respect to water level. This group also explores temporal variation in vegetative structure to identify successional changes associated with ecosystem disturbance. Archaeology sophomores examine the site from the perspective of deeper time, considering not only the environmental characteristics that might determine the suitability of the site for human occupation, but also how this particular ecosystem may have changed in response to human influence.

Regardless of disciplinary perspective, each class benefited from the increased project scope that is possible with a large number of collaborators, from the student-to-student mentoring that occurs when learners of different disciplines and experience levels interact, and from a more holistic examination of the ecosystem. Furthermore, the incorporation of an archaeology course into the CEM not only provides additional perspectives on this human-environment relationship but also adds a temporal component extending well beyond the range of typical ecological investigations.

Example 2: Earth Systems Science and General Education Programs

Global Systems (ISC 3145C) is a junior-level, interdisciplinary course that serves as an introduction to the Earth systems science program. Students in Global Systems design and implement collaborative research projects that relate to various aspects of FGCU’s watershed. The instructor poses questions at the beginning of the semester and then introduces relevant content to ensure that students acquire foundational knowledge in each of the project areas. Students working together in teams further define these research projects by developing experimental designs. The entire class then collects and analyzes data for all of the projects, with each team serving as the principal investigator for one of the projects. As part of the assessment process, student teams create and present project posters and individual students submit independent research papers.

These results are also shared with students in Marine Systems (OCE 1001C), one of the natural science electives in the general education curriculum. This course introduces undergraduates throughout the university to the interdisciplinary field of oceanography and, more generally, to the basic concepts and principles of science and the scientific process. A significant component of the coursework is laboratory- and field-based, requiring students to work together to collect and analyze data from various marine environments.

Although the course-specific learning outcomes are different, Marine Systems and Global Systems have a common focus on the impacts the ocean has on the shape of Florida’s coastline. To conduct their investigations, students in both courses visit the same location on one of the local barrier islands. These islands represent the downstream extent of FGCU’s watershed and therefore the coastal component of the campus ecosystem.

By collecting and analyzing sediments from the island’s beaches and back bays, Marine Systems students examine the relationship between water energy and sediment transport, an important relationship responsible for sculpting our shorelines. These students also determine the shape of the beach face itself using basic surveying instruments (e.g., sight level, stadium, compass) to record changes in elevation. The resulting profiles enable students to evaluate short-term changes in local patterns of erosion and deposition that track seasonal changes in wave energy.

Students in Global Systems focus on the longer-term issue of sea level rise and its impact upon coastal systems. Using data available online from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/data_res.html) the students assigned to this project estimate the overall rate of change from monthly mean sea level heights taken from a number of coastal cities in Florida over the last century. To investigate the potential impact to southwest Florida, the team then examines temporal shifts in coastal vegetation and temporal changes in patterns of estuarine sedimentation and in the geomorphology of barrier islands (Sheppard et al. 1999; Obley et al. 2000).

Beach profile data collected at one time of the year in Global Systems is combined with that collected at another time of year in Marine Systems so that students in the latter course can infer seasonal changes in local beach erosion and beach deposition. Together, these two courses engage students in environmental stewardship, help to create an evolving database of the watershed, and further our understanding of regional problems.

Curricular Feedback

The Campus Ecosystem Model promotes the temporal and spatial integration of local ecological and environmental information. By focusing on specific ecosystems associated with Florida Gulf Coast University, individual course sections lay the foundation upon which subsequent course offerings build. This interaction, with the output of one course or section serving as the input of another, creates a feedback mechanism that helps regulate the curriculum. As a result, students interact with one another across time in a very real way, contributing to an evolving information base and ultimately, an evolving curriculum.

Over time, the cumulative effect of the model is the development of an environmental history—a history that details the FGCU campus environment and its ecological functions, that examines its role in the human-environment relationship, and that assesses its impact on southwest Florida. The use of the Campus Ecosystem Model therefore links the university-learning community in a meaningful way to both the local community and the larger geographic region that it serves.

Although the formal evaluation of the model’s success has yet to be implemented, initial student feedback has been mostly positive. Anonymous comments culled from course evaluation sheets used in Issues in Ecology and Environment reflect student attitudes toward one of two assessments that incorporate the CEM:

• When we had a chance to get out in the environment, I thought that this was very Dewian and I believe that much is learned through experience. The more experiences you as instructors can give students (specifically as it applies to the environment) the better...

• The first assessment really allowed us to get familiar with our environment. Working in groups allowed teamwork and communication. This assessment made it hands on and fun.

• The final assessment worked well because it took a real issue and made us think, learn, and perhaps educate one another on a specific environmental problem.

These responses suggest that students also place value on experiential learning that is centered on real issues and situated within a familiar context—all key considerations that were used to construct the model in the first place.

With approximately 760 acres of diverse habitats situated in a rural setting in southwest Florida, the development of such a model at Florida Gulf Coast University is not surprising. The use of the campus as a focus for ecosystem study is therefore as much a product of geography as of pedagogy; however, all colleges and universities are situated within ecosystems. These campus ecosystems differ from one another, both in terms of natural form and function and in the relative degree of human influence. Since the Campus Ecosystem Model is independent of ecosystem type and quality, all colleges and universities have the potential to benefit from its use. The model will continue to be a valuable tool for FGCU in the future, even as the campus ecosystem continues to change in response to university growth and the increasing urbanization of southwest Florida.

S. Gregory Tolley is an associate professor of marine science, Edwin Everham is an associate professor of environmental studies, Michael McDonald is an assistant professor of anthropology, and Mike Savarese is an associate professor of Earth systems science, Florida Gulf Coast University, 10501 FGCU Boulevard South, Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565; e-mail: gtolley@fgcu.edu.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Joseph Kakareka for assembling a core of analytical capabilities that could be used to integrate courses; Rhonda Holtzclaw, Mary Newman, Michael Lucas, and Aixa Chaves-Nieves for their assistance in the laboratory and Sharon Thurston for her work in the field; Rebecca Totaro and Aswani Volety for their valuable comments and careful reviews of the manuscript; and Jack Crocker and Donna Price Henry for their support of team-teaching and flexibility in course scheduling.

Note

The Campus Ecosystem Model is partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF-DUE 9850743) and by the United States Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.

References

Allard, D.W. 1994. Pond in a jar. The American Biology Teacher 56:372–373.
Allard, D.W. 1996. Schoolyard symbiosis. Science Scope 96(November/December): 42–44.
Barr, R.B., and J. Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change (November/December):13–25.
Bogner, F.X. 1998. The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective: Program at the Bavarian Forest National Park. The Journal of Environmental Education 29:17–29.
Cronin-Jones, L.L. 1991. Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28:235–250.
Gabelnick, F., J. MacGregor, and R.S. Matthews. 1990. Learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 41:1–102.
Grimes, K. 1995. School yard ecology. Teaching PreK-8 25:40.
Kyle, W.C., Jr., M.C. Linn, B.L. Bitner, C.P. Mitchener, and B. Perry. 1991. The role of research in science teaching: An NSTA theme paper. Science Education 75:413–418.
MacGregor, J. 1990. Collaborative learning: shared inquiry as a process of reform. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 42:19–30.
Manzanal, R.F., L.M.R. Barreiro, and M.C. Jimenez. 1999. Relationship between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental protection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:431–453.
Marcus, B.A. 1994. Microcosms for lake acidification studies. The American Biology Teacher 56:433–437.
Massey, W.E. 1989. Science education in the United States: What the scientific community can do. Science 245:915–921.
McDonald, M., and S.G. Tolley. In review. Creating interdisciplinary convergence through an outcome-based curriculum. Issues in Integrative Studies.
National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1996. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, D.C.: NSF.
Obley, S.P., M.P. Lucas, J.C. Mallon, S. Hammermeister, M. Savarese, and L.P. Tedesco. 2000. Recent sedimentologic and sea level history of Estero Bay: Implications for the geomorphologic evolution of the Southwest Florida coast. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 32: A65.
Sheppard, J.B., D. Johnston, C. Lange, and M. Savarese. 1999. Impact of sea level rise on the coastal systems of Southwest Florida. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 31: A67.
Uno, G.E. 1990. Inquiry in the classroom. BioScience 40:841–843.
Watson, R.F. 1999. The need for more schoolteachers in science and math: How colleges can help. Journal of College Science Teaching 28:293–296.

Click here for PDF file.