Incorporating Prerecorded Environmental Lifecycle Assessment Modules in a Classroom Setting

On the basis of informal discussions with authors of other online modules, it was planned to create prerecorded PowerPoint LCA modules that lasted 20 min, on average. Broad topical areas in LCA implementation then were designated for organization of the modules. Every module’s title and classification under the topical areas are listed in Fig. 1. Under each topical area there are two groups: one for overview modules and one for detailed modules on specific topics within the group. The intent is for the overview modules to be available to introduce each topical area, whereas the detailed modules delve deeper into specific subjects and can be added to as time goes on. All of these modules then were used as the main lecture components in a new LCA graduate course offered in the fall of 2015 at Washington State University (WSU) that also included an associated project, typically on the basis of the research area of interest for each student.

The initial focus was on groups A and B, which cover LCA methodologies and the associated environmental impacts because these can be used by all interested parties regardless of the application. This was followed by an introduction to current tools and LCA implementation in the transportation arena, which are developing areas in LCA. The intention is to add to these groups in future research endeavors, and to allow other LCA practitioners or researchers also to add relevant modules.

Module content and structure were developed starting with prior knowledge of the authors as outlines of likely needed slides and topics. Then, various sources, such as books, journal articles, and websites with either general LCA information or information specifically related to the environmental phenomenon, software tool, or other module focus were consulted. These added significant depth to the modules and were most influential for the detailed modules. Each module began with a title slide introducing the course, the course outline, and a title slide introducing the module topic. Following that was the main content, with headers on every page to denote topics. The overview modules typically contained a brief self-assessment quiz at the end, with answers provided. The detailed modules usually had a short list of some suggested homework questions at the end for those who wished to implement these modules in a course with additional work. A report by Haselbach and Langfitt (2015) provides detailed explanations of module series format, content, and information sources.

The three-credit course at WSU was planned with several components. Some of the class periods consisted of playing a module followed by discussion, review, and/or in-class work by the students on performing calculations. During six weeks in the 15-week class, a class period or more was dedicated to student participation via short presentations and class discussions of their developing work on an LCA outline for a project related either to their research or a topic of interest. The course also had three homework sets on the basis of calculations related to the environmental impacts and numerical methodologies for presentation of LCA results. There were three quizzes, two of which were numerical, on the basis of the homework, and one which was qualitative, with short answers on the basis of associated readings and the information in the modules. The readings were typically from an LCA book by Simonen (2014). This was followed by a report outlining the LCA methodology for their chosen project, both oral and written. An outline of the course schedule including modules, readings, homework, project deliverables, and quizzes is provided in Table 1. Fifteen students took this course, from various departments in the engineering college, including civil and environmental engineering, mechanical engineering, biological systems engineering, and chemical engineering. Prior to implementation of the three-credit graduate level engineering class on LCA at WSU, a subset of the modules was used for a one-credit class offered at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Three engineering students and one professor participated.

The WSU course was structured around the module series because the two were essentially codeveloped. Therefore, educational objectives of the course and module series were similar, with the course providing an additional objective related to the skills developed in carrying out the course’s final project. The course description, objectives, and outline from the syllabus are listed in Fig. 2, with the outlined activities correlated to the objectives. Readings from the book [Simonen 2014 (Table 1)] were intended to supplement the module series by providing alternate presentations of information, additional content not covered in the module series, a different medium for students who learn best by reading, and a different perspective of the LCA approach’s applications (the book is focused on the building sector and the module series on the transportation sector).

When developing educational products, it is common to evaluate the various components with respect to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001; Krathwohl 2002). These are: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Table 2 outlines how the course activities and learning objectives (as previously listed in Fig.  2) related to this taxonomy. None of the activities or objectives were crossreferenced with the final taxonomy of create because the intention of the course was to prepare the students to create in their future research.

All 15 members of the class completed the survey. Every respondent answered questions 1–6 and 8. Six students did not fully respond to question 7 (by leaving at least one portion of that question blank). Similarly, six students did not respond to question 9. This response rate is considered very high in the opinion of the researchers.

Results of the first four questions are summarized in Table 3, with median and mean used as measures of center, and minimum, maximum, and standard deviations as measures of spread. All questions received an average score greater than 4; however, there was some variation in center and spread between questions. Students gave the highest average score to Q4, with more than half of respondents giving a 5 and no respondent giving a score lower than 4. That indicated that students liked the combined module-discussion class style. The next highest average score was for Q2, indicating that the discussion was useful to clarify content in modules. Although still a high score at a mean of 4.20, the lowest average score was given to Q1, indicating that some students may have had trouble understanding concepts in the modules prior to discussion. This was also the question with the largest standard deviation and range, suggesting that students varied considerably in their ability to understand information directly from the modules. That could be related to students having different styles of learning, with some more able to focus and take in information from a module, and others requiring more interaction. No student gave lower than a 4 on Q3, suggesting that all students thought the discussion stimulated some further thought.

These results are consistent with other studies on the use of educational modules in engineering disciplines. Henson et al. (2002) reported on the use of Internet-based educational modules for structural timber design. Students replied to survey questions related to their understanding of content, ability to visualize concepts, time spent studying, ability to learn at their own pace, and overall result of their learning on a 4-point scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree). Similar to the LCA module series results, students largely agreed that they understood topics, were able to learn at their own pace, and, overall, got more out of the modules than a typical content delivery structure, with most responses being in the strongly agree and agree categories. In a more general evaluation of module use in an electrical engineering course, the majority of students provided very positive and positive feedback to the module use (24% and 41%, respectively), with only 4% of students viewing the modules negatively (Daniels et al. 2003).

The results of conventional content analysis are summarized in tree diagrams (Figs. 3 and 4), showing the highest level classifications; i.e., those synthesized during step 6 of the content analysis. The percentage of respondents who identified at least one idea falling under each of those themes is conveyed by the shaded bars. Ideas and counts synthesized at one more level of resolution (i.e., the words written in the margins during step 4 of the content analysis) for each overall theme under advantages were (with frequency counts in parentheses): reviewable (9), modules prompt discussion (3), time saving (2), organized (2), clear (2), note taking unnecessary (2), discussion makes format interesting (2), time control (1), brief (1), efficient (1), easy to follow (1), consistent (1), complete (1), visual (1), viewable if missed class (1), and discussion clarifies modules (1). The disadvantages identified included: too fast (4), no questions allowed during (3), too fast for questions (3), less personal than live speaker (2), boring (2), lose focus (2), nondynamic/monotonous (2), narrator reading slides (1), and no note taking incentive (1). All of these appeared to be specifically referring to the modules except for those comments directly identifying the discussion component.

On the basis of question 8, students generally believed that using the modules without a discussion component was appropriate for private viewing to use at home, such as for self-learning. However, most students expressed that a discussion component made the modules more suitable for use in class and helped to expand and reinforce understanding.

Question 9 revealed that most students thought a module length of approximately 20 min (the length generally used for modules in the class) was appropriate. In fact, only one response provided a negative critique, with all others stating that the length was good (One was pretty long. Most were perfect length.). A larger share of students expressed a desire for more discussion time, with approximately a third of the respondents making this point. The course originally was designed for fewer students, which would have accommodated longer discussions.

Four students answered question 10 with a critique, requesting a module on a real LCA project, slower talking on the module narration, fewer figures crowding slides, and a suggestion to add discussion questions to the end of the modules. Five students expressed that they enjoyed or greatly benefited from the class. The final six students left the response area blank.