Science education andsustainability initiatives

A campus recycling case study shows theimportance of opportunity

Lisa Pike, Tim Shannon, Kay Lawrimore, April McGee,Martin Taylor and Gary Lamoreaux

Francis Marion University, Florence, South Carolina, USA

Keywords Case studies, Education, Problem-based learning, Recycling,Sustainable development, Universities

Abstract Instructors at Francis Marion University developed a recycling course in an attempt tosatisfy the students’ goals of increasing campus awareness about sustainability and recycling, and theteachers’ goals of using problem-based learning approaches in class. Students enrolled in the coursedesigned their own experiment, completed the experiment and presented the results at several nationalmeetings. The focal point of the experiment was student apartments, where some students wereprovided with recycling bins, some were not, and some were provided with both bins and educationabout the importance of recycling. Results show that students living in campus apartmentssignificantly reduced their waste stream when given recycling bins and some education about recycling.Although ANOVA tests showed that while the presence of recycling education did not result insignificantly more recycling, students who received bins (opportunity) recycled more as time went on.Positive student feedback indicated the success of using project-based learning to teach sustainability.

BackgroundIf it is the role of colleges and universities to educate members of society,including future leaders, then they must be at the forefront of the sustainabilitymovement, working to increase public awareness concerning environmentalissues and increasing the knowledge, the technology and the will to create asustainable future. However, simply teaching the required courses for anenvironmentally literate citizenry is not enough. Many educators andenvironmentalists emphasize that a university must act more responsiblybefore its faculty can teach an ethic of responsibility (Allen, 1999; Creighton,1998; Orr, 1992, 1994). This is also a tenet of the 1990 Talloires Declaration,which encourages universities to engage in research and education towards asustainable future, and to set an example of environmental responsibility byestablishing programs of resource conservation recycling and waste reductionat universities (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1999).

David Orr (1994) states:

. . . students hear about global responsibility while being educated in institutions that oftenspend their budgets and invest their endowments in the most irresponsible things. The lessonsbeing taught are of hypocrisy and ultimate despair. Students learn, without anyone evertelling them, that they are helpless to overcome the frightening gap between ideals and reality.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www .emeraldinsight .com/researchregister http:// www.emeraldinsigh t.com/1467-637 0.htm

IJSHE4,3

218

International Journal of Sustainabilityin Higher EducationVol. 4 No. 3, 2003pp. 218-229q MCB UP Limited1467-6370DOI 10.1108/14676370310485410

Increasing emphasis on sustainability in practice, rather than solely in theory,is the solution to this problem, and can often be a benefit to a university as well.Colleges and universities which attempt to integrate sustainability into campusoperations often see positive effects: reducing ecological footprint, oftenresulting in monetary savings for the institution, decreasing waste stream,reducing pollution and energy, and developing a green campus can serve as amodel for other campuses or institutions (Eagan and Keniry, 1998; Filho, 2000;Strauss, 1996).

At the same time that there is a need for infusing curriculum and campusoperations with sustainability, and teaching earth literacy in our students,there is a need for national science education reform focusing on improvingthe quality of teaching in higher education (Arambula-Greenfield, 1996;Balsas, 2001; Friedler and Tamir, 1986; Gurwick and Krasny, 2001; Jorgensen,2001; Laurillard, 1993). As education and sustainability are linked, reformmust take place if we hope to become a sustainable society. Though the use oflectures has been the predominant way to instruct university students, therehas recently been a shift towards a more interactive, inquiry-based teachingstyle. It is recognized that the way in which learning occurs is as important asthe content; courses taught as lecture courses tend to induce passivitywhereas in an active learning process such as laboratory, the old adage“learning by doing” once again rings true (Ahern-Rindell, 1998; Orr, 1994;Schamel and Ayres, 1992). Because students have little opportunity to designand complete their own long-term experiments they lack an adequateunderstanding of the scientific method. The National Research Council statesthat a central strategy for teaching science must include active inquirybeginning with a student’s question and followed by a student-designedexperiment (Martin-Hansen, 2002; National Research Council, 2000). Towardsthis end, problem-based learning methods are becoming more popular and areresulting in better student learning (Adey and Shayer, 1990;Arambula-Greenfield, 1996; Boersma et al., 2000; Darling, 2001; Gerber et al.,2001; Grant and Vatnick, 1998; Gurwick and Krasny, 2001; Laurillard, 1993;Marek and Cavallo, 1997; Whyte, 1999;).

Student-led research can not only improve learning subject by subject, butcan help students think logically and in a “big picture” kind of way,incorporating knowledge from a variety of backgrounds and coordinating itinto a cohesive whole. David Orr (1994) includes among the failings of today’seducational systems the lack of connectedness – without interdisciplinarylearning, students won’t learn to think in whole systems and will fail torecognize our dependence on natural systems. “All education is environmentaleducation”, Orr (1994) says, and points out that our system of teaching, witheach discipline separated from the rest, only leads to the misconception that onediscipline has nothing to do with another. Finding the key to living sustainablyrequires interdisciplinary cooperation (Jenks-Jay, 1995). Integrating service and

Campusrecycling case

study

219

learning by solving problems as part of the curriculum can improve educationas well as make education more relevant and more interdisciplinary (Orr, 1994).Problem-based courses, similar to service learning, focus on a specific problem,promote interdisciplinary learning and faculty cooperation, clarify informationlearned in lecture, and teach critical thinking while actively engaging thestudent (Ahern-Rindell, 1998; Balsas, 2001; Cortese, 1992; Leroy et al., 2001). Inteaching science and the scientific method especially, problem-based projectsneed to involve students at each step of the research; students should start withdefining a research question and proceed through carrying out experimentsand analyzing/interpreting data, raise new questions based on their resultsand, just as important as the research itself, present/publish the results(Breyman, 1999; Clugston and Calder, 1999; Darling, 2001; Gurwick andKrasny, 2001; Whyte, 1999). These projects and case studies, unlike standardcookbook laboratories, often last several weeks, draw upon a variety ofresources, and often have no pre-ordained answer.

In addition, teaching environmental science using problem-based methodscan result in a high level of student engagement as students learn to put theirideas about sustainability into action. The process of campus greening raisesstudent consciousness, gives the student a sense of excitement andconnectedness to the campus, and allow students to develop a greaterattachment to the discipline because of their positive research experience(Chaplin et al., 1998).

With this in mind, and at the request of several biology majors, professors atFrancis Marion University in Florence S.C. designed an honors biology coursewith two goals:

(1) to reinforce the scientific method using a project-based learningapproach; and

(2) to teach sustainability using campus operations, particularly recycling,as a focus.

Three students signed up for the course: two biology majors and one businessmajor.

Francis Marion University (FMU) is one of South Carolina’s 12 public,co-educational liberal arts universities. It is also a Phase II school in theSustainable Universities Initiative (SUI), a joint effort by Clemson University,the Medical University of South Carolina, and the University of South Carolinato educate our students for a complex future and to provide models forsustainable design and operations within each school. Francis MarionUniversity realizes that practices at the classroom and academic office level oncollege and university campuses offer many opportunities for environmentalaction. These opportunities are also a way to teach by example and, whenstudents are actively involved in the greening initiative, these opportunities canbe used as a case-study method of teaching as well.

IJSHE4,3

220

The sustainability initiativeThe campus recycling effort, spurred by the voluntary efforts of the EcologyClub in 1995, and by results from an environmental science laboratory thatdocumented the campus waste stream was initiated in 1995. This increasedawareness and effort was also partly due to a state mandate by the SouthCarolina Legislature for the reduction of solid wastes produced by state offices(including state educational facilities) by 30 percent.

In addition to the state mandate, there was already some evidence thatofficials at Francis Marion University were interested in sustainability: a newenergy efficient lighting system the gymnasium, fairly active paper recyclingprogram in the academic buildings, use of some native plants in landscaping,and a revitalized nature trail. But an area of major concern to the students wasthe lack of recycling in student housing, a service which was discontinued in1996 because of too much contamination in the recycling bins which didn’t havesecure lids with the can/bottle opening and which weren’t adequately labeled.

During 2001, three professors, at the request of several students, developedthe honors biology course. They agreed to initiate and design a scientificrecycling study, use student workers and use the campus as a laboratory. Twobiology professors and a business/marketing professor worked together tocreate the course and obtain funding. Several grants from the SustainableUniversities Initiative (SUI) were used for student travel, publicity/recyclingeducation, and to purchase equipment.

Recycling is a popular area in campus environmental reform, and is oftentargeted first by groups interested in campus greening. With this recyclingproject we hoped to instruct all members of the campus community about theamount of recyclable trash they discard and the cost savings benefits of recycling.The project was designed to answer the questions: Will students at FMU recyclegiven the opportunity, and will recycling education increase recycling at FMU?

In an attempt to encourage fellow students to recycle, an experiment wasdesigned to test whether education about recycling and opportunities forrecycling had an impact on student participation in the campus recycling effort.The project involved research, experimental design, data collection andinterpretation, marketing the recycling concept, presentation of results atnational conferences, and a term paper. Goals of the project included:

. to expand the recycling program into student areas, such as the dormsand apartments;

. to show the university administration that students want recycling, andwill recycle, given the opportunity;

. to create greater awareness about recycling and other sustainabilityissues facing our campus; and

. to create a Web page and an orientation brochure to be given to incomingstudents on the “whys and how-tos” of recycling at FMU.

Campusrecycling case

study

221

Project designThe project design involved 13 apartment blocks, with eight four-personapartments in each. The buildings were divided into three groups. Group A(four blocks) received weekly education about recycling as well as individualrecycling bins. Group B (four blocks) received the bins only and group C (fiveblocks) received no recycling equipment. All groups received an introductorynotice explaining the experiment and detailing what items the FMU campuswas equipped to recycle. Recycling bins were purchased at area stores andconsisted of ten-gallon rectangular plastic storage bins with a recycle logospray-painted on the sides and a videotape-sized hole cut in the lid. Trash andrecycled items were collected weekly, on Mondays and Thursdays between4.00 pm and 6.00 pm and weighed using a standard bathroom scale. Trash andrecycled items were weighed separately, and the trash thrown out and therecyclables placed in the campus recycling dumpster. Group A also receivedstudent-designed weekly education marketing the concept and stressing theimportance of recycling. This education consisted of several flyers indicatingreasons to recycle, Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)recycling posters, a pizza party/informational session, and a “10 ways to savethe Earth” bookmark.

ResultsResults show that students living in campus apartments can and willsignificantly reduce their waste stream when given recycling bins. The totalwaste stream for the study was 2,841 kilograms (Figure 1); there were elevencollections in a seven-week period, excluding spring break week and the daysstudents were out of state presenting preliminary results at meetings. The totalrecyclable material for groups A and B was 661 kilograms. Group A had 382kilograms of recyclables and B had 279 kilograms of recyclables: almost 1/3 ofthe waste stream was diverted. Group A began the study with 35 per cent of thewaste classified as recyclable and group B had 25 per cent thus classified(Figure 2). By weight, glass had the most impact in the recycling materialfollowed by plastic and paper (Figure 3).

The statistical technique, analysis of variance, is the preferred method to testwhether there is a significant difference among means of two or moreindependent samples. The results showed that the waste stream of the threegroups did differ (F ¼ 9:8, p ¼ 0:001; see Figure 4). However, the test did notsupport the hypothesis of a difference between the means of recyclables forgroup A and group B ( p ¼ 0.25 see Figure 5). There was, however, a significantchange in the percentage of recyclable material from the start of the study untilthe completion (from 25 percent to 32 percent) for groups A and B.

Although the statistical analysis did not allow the conclusion that educationincreases the amount of recycling, we are confident that the presence ofeducation and bins did significantly reduce the waste stream. And, we are

IJSHE4,3

222

Figure 1.Total waste (trash and

recyclabels)totalrecyclabes for study vs

total recyclables forstudy period

Figure 2.Recyclabes (glass,

aluminum, plastic, paper)as a percentage of the

waste stream

Campusrecycling case

study

223

Figure 3.Total recyclable material

Figure 4.Total waste stream foreach collection period

IJSHE4,3

224

confident that the students changed their behavior over time (from a low of 25percent waste reduction to a high of 59 percent the week following springbreak).

The students also made the following recommendations regardinguniversity recycling policy. These included:

. Recycling bins should be placed next to trash cans in order to create anoption for students. This should increase the amount recycled.

. Creating a new full time staff position (recycling coordinator).

. Recycling at campus functions (such as orientation, sorority, fraternityand sporting events, school dances, and the annual Arts Alive Festival).

Media exposure was an added bonus as students were interviewed by the pressand presented their research at the district Tri-Beta meeting in New Orleans,the National Collegiate Honors Conference in Nashville, and the South CarolinaAcademy of Sciences in Conway.

ChallengesThere were several major hurdles during the course of the semester. The firstwas the contamination problem – what to do with bins that had non-recyclableitems in them; despite our notice about what could and could not go in the bins,we had a lot of styrofoam, plastic wrap, paper cups and plastic bags included.In the end, we decided that we didn’t have the time to go through the bins and

Figure 5.Total recyclabes for each

collection (glass,aluminum, plastic, paper)

Campusrecycling case

study

225

sort out the trash, if a bin was badly contaminated, the whole thing wasrecorded as trash.

Getting the physical plant, already overworked and understaffed, to supportthe recycling initiative was also a challenge. They were helpful in letting usborrow a truck and unlocking closed roads between the dorms, makingcollections easier. It was a bit harder to coordinate storage and pickup ofrecyclables. It was made very clear that the university couldn’t afford toincrease the workload of the custodial staff, and it was also fairly clear that theuniversity was quite happy with the local waste hauler. At FMU, the localwaste hauler is paid per trip to campus, not per pound of trash collected. Mostrecycling programs can document monetary savings in that less trash(poundage) is shipped out when recycling takes place, so they pay less forhauling waste. As the physical plant was reluctant to have the waste haulersreduce the number of trips they made to campus to empty trash dumpsters,FMU actually pays more when the recycling program is operational.

Continuing the sustainability initiativeEducation of both custodial staff and the housing office are the next steps. Weneed to ensure that the recycling bins are placed on the room inventories, bothso that there will be a charge, and replacement funds, if a bin gets stolen, lost, ordamaged, and so the bins won’t need to be collected at the end of the term. Atpresent, students may request a recycling bin; we hope that in the future binswill become a standard piece of “furniture” included in all student rooms. Thebiology department will continue to support the Housing Office in encouragingstudents to recycle, the Physical Plant is working on putting together arecycling committee, the director of custodial services has agreed to let therecycling committee address the custodians, and a Web page and a brochuredescribing Francis Marion University’s recycling program have just beencompleted and will be a part of this year’s new student orientation program.

ConclusionsVisible and enforceable, recycling is one of the easiest and mostenvironmentally sound practices a college or university can undertake in thegreening process (Ching and Gogan, 1992). And because it is also measurable,the recycling effort lends itself well to scientific study. The results of our studyfurther indicate the willingness of students to recycle when given theopportunity (bins); an additional focus on education about the importance ofrecycling was not necessary. The impact of the student effort becomessignificant when faced with a state mandated 30 percent reduction of wastestream.

It is also clear that interdisciplinary collaboration is an essential ingredientto living sustainably. Due to the complexity of environmental issues, studentsinvolved in a project such as ours learn more than just science: students learn

IJSHE4,3

226

that ethical, social, political, economical and international relations are keyfactors in the success of their project (Clugston and Calder, 1999). They learnthat environmental issues often involve moral choices and that to makeinformed decisions, they must learn the skills necessary to deal with real-lifeproblems. In addition, they must learn to interact with and understand peoplewith different backgrounds and viewpoints (Flint, 2000). During the course ofstudy the students learned that there are many countries around the worldwhere active recycling programs are found, and, in fact, a few countries withmore aggressive recycling policies than the USA. Recycling becomes not just astate-wide or nation-wide issue, but a global problem to tackle. Studying theEuropean Union’s legislation, directives and initiatives concerning solid wastedisposal and recycling, or Germany’s “Green Dot” system (licensed in nineEuropean countries), which places the responsibility for minimizing waste onthe manufacturers, or Canada’s deposit system and push for greater producerresponsibility, can illustrate to our students the variety of ways that waste canbe reduced as well as give local and worldwide examples of good recyclingprograms (Lund, 2001).

The economics of recycling including markets, decreasing landfill space andrising waste disposal costs, and concerns about incineration combine well withpolitics – most states as well as the European Union have mandatory recyclinglegislation – and psychology – attitudes are important in getting highparticipation rates. The European union, for example, requires that countries“recover” a minimum of 50 percent of their used packaging with materialrecycling at 25 percent minimum (Lund, 2001). Economic and politicaldecisions have resulted in the United States and 15 other countries enactinglaws to require the take-back of certain kinds of batteries, and many countriesare placing the responsibility for collecting recyclables back on the companiesthat made the product (Lund, 2001). These visible relationships help showstudents that environmental problems are interdisciplinary and international.

Campus greening projects are often a student’s first experience with socialchange, promoting greater consciousness and awareness (Breyman, 1999).Working with the intent that the policies and procedures created wouldactually be implemented and translated into an upgrade of the universityrecycling gave the students a sense that their voices mattered and that theyactually made a difference. Curriculum greening teaches students the means tohelp society become sustainable and how science, especially that whichinvolves active learning, can be used as a tool to teach environmentalresponsibility (Breyman, 1999; Pace, 2000). Student feedback on the course waspositive and coupled with requests for a variety of similar courses andamazement that the students themselves were able to reduce the waste streamby 30 percent.

Information from this course has been incorporated into introductorybiology classes and has helped enlighten the entire campus community about

Campusrecycling case

study

227

problems and controversy surrounding waste management. It was an excellentexperiential learning opportunity for the students to become familiar with auniversal problem and understand it in a way that lecturing in the classroomcould not have achieved.

References

Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (1990), “Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle andhigh school students”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27 pp. 267-85.

Ahern-Rindell, A. (1998), “Applying inquiry-based and cooperative group learning strategies topromote critical thinking”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 203-7.

Allen, A. (1999), “Institutional change and leadership in greening the campus”, in Filho, W.L.(Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 105-28.

Arambula-Greenfield, T. (1996), “Implementing problem-based learning in a college scienceclass”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-30.

Balsas, C. (2001), “Towards more sustainable transportation: lessons learned from a teachingexperiment”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 316-28.

Boersma, S., Hluchy, M., Godshalk, G., Crane, J., DeGraff, D. and Blauth, J. (2000),“Student-designed, interdisciplinary science projects”, Journal of College ScienceTeaching, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 397-402.

Breyman, S. (1999), “Sustainability through incremental steps? The case study of campusgreening at Rensselaer”, in Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang,Frankfurt am Main, pp. 79-88.

Chaplin, S.B., Manske, J.M. and Cruise, J.L. (1998), “Introducing freshmen to investigativeresearch – a course for biology majors at Minnesota’s University of St. Thomas”, Journalof College Science Teaching, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 347-50.

Ching, R. and Gogan, R. (1992), “Campus recycling: everyone plays a part”, in Eagen, D.J. andOrr, D.W. (Eds), The Campus and Environmental Responsibility, New Directions for HigherEducation, No. 77, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 113-26.

Clugston, R.M. and Calder, W. (1999), “Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education”,in Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main,pp. 31-46.

Cortese, A.D. (1992), “Education for an environmentally sustainable future”, EnvironmentalScience and Technology, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1009-14.

Creighton, S.H. (1998), Greening the Ivory Tower, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,Cambridge, MA.

Darling, R. (2001), “A directed research project investigating territoriality and aggression incrickets”, The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 44-7.

Eagan, D.J. and Keniry, J. (1998), Green Investment, Green Return: How Practical ConservationProjects Save Millions on America’s Campuses, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,DC.

Filho, W.L. (2000), “Sustainability and university life: some European perspectives”, in Filho,W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 19-30.

Flint, R.W. (2000), “Interdisciplinary education in sustainability: links in secondary and highereducation”, International Journal on Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 191-202.

IJSHE4,3

228

Friedler, Y. and Tamir, P. (1986), “Teaching basic concepts of scientific research to high schoolstudents”, Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 263-9.

Gerber, B., Cavallo, A.M.L. and Marek, E.A. (2001), “Relationships among informal learningenvironments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability”, International Journalof Science Education, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 535-49.

Grant, B.W. and Vatnick, I. (1998), “A multi-week inquiry for an undergraduate introductorybiology laboratory”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 109-12.

Gurwick, N.P. and Krasny, M.E. (2001), “Enhancing student understanding of environmentalsciences research”, American Biology Teacher, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 236-41.

Jenks-Jay, N. (1995), “Higher education and the environment: how colleges and universities areresponding to the challenge of educating future leaders”, National Association ofEnvironmental Professionals News, September-October, pp. 20-3.

Jorgensen, L.M. (2001), “Science literates or science experts?”, The Science Teacher, Vol. 68 No. 9,pp. 46-9.

Laurillard, D. (1993), Rethinking University Teaching, Routledge, London.

Leroy, P., van den Bosch, H. and Ligthart, S. (2001), “The role of project-based learning in the‘Political and Social Sciences of the Environment’ curriculum at Nijmegen University”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 8-20.

Lund, H.F. (2001), “Recycling in other countries”, in Lund, H.F. (Ed.), The McGraw-Hill RecyclingHandbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 37.1-37.24.

Marek, E.A. and Cavallo, A.M.L. (1997), The Learning Cycle and Elementary School Science,Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.

Martin-Hansen, L. (2002), “Defining inquiry”, The Science Teacher, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 34-7.

National Research Council (2000), Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards,National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Orr, D.W. (1992), “The problem of education”, in Eagen, D.J. and Orr, D.W. (Eds), The Campusand Environmental Responsibility, New Directions for Higher Education, No. 77,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-8.

Orr, D.W. (1994), Earth in Mind, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Pace, P. (2000), “Attitudes towards environmental education in the Maltese formal educationsystem”, in Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Communicating Sustainability, Peter Lang, Frankfurt amMain, pp. 25-44.

Schamel, D. and Ayres, M.P. (1992), “The minds-on approach: student creativity and personalinvolvement in the undergraduate science laboratory”, Journal of College Science Teaching,Vol. 21, pp. 226-9.

Strauss, B.H. (1996), The Class of 2000 Report: Environmental Education, Practices, andActivism on Campus, Nathan Cummings Foundation, New York, NY.

University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (1999), The Talloires Declaration, ULSF,Washington, DC.

Whyte, R.S. (1999), “Promoting environmental citizenship and sustainability in regionalcampuses: experiences from a consortium of 15 colleges and universities”, in Filho, W.L.(Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 193-210.

Campusrecycling case

study

229