Dear Martin,

Thanks for your interest in our project!  The following represent some of our evolving thinking in the form of design principles about fostering equitable engagement in STEM learning grounded in literature and our experiences:

 

Design Principle 1: Connect Project to Teen & Adult Interests & Identities

The first principle encourages both teen and adult participants to connect their community conservation project to their prior experiences. This helps ensure that the project draws on the assets of both partners, avoiding deficit framing and allowing for more expansive and meaningful ways for participants to engage in science and conservation. This asset-based approach facilitates STEM identity authoring (Rodriguez et al., 2019; Rodriguez, 2020), which in turn can promote lifelong STEM learning and participation (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).

 

Design Principle 2: Connect Project to Community Need & Real-World Challenges

Through principle 2, participants connect their project to a community need and a real-world challenge. Not only does this set up the project to have real community benefits, but it provides participants with the opportunity to see the power in applying their disciplinary and action-oriented knowledge in the context of addressing community issues that are relevant to them.

 

Design Principle 3: Connect Project to Disciplinary Knowledge & Practice

Principle 3 encourages participants to utilize knowledge and practices of experts when planning and implementing their conservation projects. These connections allow for partnerships with a range of people from a variety of fields, including scientists and community organization leaders.

This design principle aims to connect teen and adult learners to communities of practice (e.g., amateur birders) to both leverage disciplinary knowledge and practice to accomplish their desired pursuits, while also connecting them to communities where identities are constructed.

 

Design Principle 4: Connect Project to Community by Sharing Publicly

The fourth principle of sharing the project with the community and broader public serves two goals: (1) it informs the public about community members who are actively engaged in community improvements, and (2) it publicly recognizes the accomplishment of both partners. Similar to design principles 2 and 3, this principle has a dual purpose of both supporting teen and adult identity authoring and supporting community conservation efforts. While UConn-CTP project final products may range from a poster, article in a local newspaper, an Esri StoryMap, or a park bench, teen and adult participants are encouraged and supported to share their projects publicly. For most, this means presenting at a statewide conservation conference.

Thank you, Todd, for these detailed design principles.  They are addressing Q3. How would you answer your Qs 1 and 2:

 

• What are the successes, lessons learned, limitations, and obstacles you experienced?
• How has learning changed in the new contexts of virtual, blended, hybrid, etc.?

 

Hi Martin,

I'd love to chime in regarding question 1.

Participant access to technology and reliable internet was one obstacle we faced, though we tried to mitigate that by loaning out laptops and mobile hotspots to folks who needed them.

I think the most difficult challenge was that the virtual format might have inhibited participants from connecting or interacting with each other on a more personal level. We had relatively low responses to our post-workshop survey question that asked to what extent the virtual setting enhanced or inhibited a participants’ ability to establish a connection with their partner/teammates (68% and 63% for CTP teens and adults, respectively). These results will help guide this year's programming efforts - we aim to increase the rapport among participants by providing additional opportunities for teammates to interact and build stronger relationships.

I consider our biggest success to have been connecting our teen and adult participants with nature found right outside their door. We did this through freely available mobile apps that got folks outside: identifying and recording hyper-local observations of plants and animals, mapping their surroundings, and sharing their discoveries with each other. 

Participating from home also provided an opportunity to those who may have limited access to traditional in-person programs, for example, those who lack transportation or aren’t able to travel to a university campus or workshop location. An adult CTP interviewee noted that the virtual format was more convenient than attending a face-to-face workshop: “I think, personally, it worked out better. . . . I didn’t have to find childcare.  I could stay at home.  I could work in my house.  I didn’t have to worry about commuting anywhere.” 

Hi Martin, 

And to respond to Q2 (How has learning changed in the new contexts of virtual, blended, hybrid, etc.?), we leaned more into place-based learning and having participants engage more so with the natural environments in their backyard and assessing environmental quality parameters near home (e.g. biodiversity assessment, water quality assessment). As Nicole mentioned above, an important part of CTP is intergeneration learning that happens with the teams working through field activities together. We faced some minor challenges with replicating this in a virtual platform, but were more or less able to overcome this by using breakout rooms at multiple points through out the virtual workshop. This allowed teams time to discuss and develop their community projects among themselves with an instructor present to help guide/facilitate discussion. Participants were also able to work on their projects in the field after the two-day workshop following social distancing protocols.

Thank you for joining our discussion, Amy!

I think our star activity was the Backyard Biodiversity Challenge. This was a place-based educational activity at our participants’ homes and away from the computer. Participants were given 15 minutes to record observations of flora and fauna in their backyard or neighborhood using a free data-collection mobile app, Epicollect5. We structured this activity as a teen versus adult friendly competition to boost engagement and replicate the relaxed learning experience of our in-person field program. After returning to Zoom an instructor shared and discussed the results of the activity with the full group. One benefit of being virtual, that wouldn't have happened if we were all together in person, was seeing the map of Connecticut with all of the observation locations. It was a fantastic way to get folks outside, connecting with nature in their immediate area, and also genuinely highlighting the biodiversity throughout our state. We will absolutely include this activity again in future virtual programs.

Hi Amy,

Thank you so much for your questions and the link to the Learning with Purpose work! I wanted to add on to Todd's response in regard to our motivation to work with life-long learners and intergenerational partnerships. Our NSF AISL research associated with this project is focused on understanding STEM identity authoring by life-long learners or intergenerational partnerships, which is linked to sustained interest and involvement in STEM and conservation efforts by lifelong learners (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This focus on STEM identity authoring by life-long learners is motivated by the fact that much of conservation and land use decisions are often carried out at the local level by volunteer boards and commissions throughout the United States (Arnold 2000; Nolon 2014), which typically have little support in the form of education in natural resources or conservation science and often represent an older demographic. Thus, the intergenerational partnerships formed and supported by the CTP program provides an opportunity to involve high school students in these local conservation efforts, provide learning opportunities for both teen and adult conservation volunteers, and bring together the unique skills and knowledge of teens (e.g., tech-savvy) and adults (e.g., knowledgeable of local community environmental issues) that can lead to innovative ways of addressing real world pursuits and challenges that are relevant and important to the participants and their communities.

Thank you for this! It is so easy to bemoan different lacks in the newer generations or the older generations, but you are trying to combat that demoralizing approach with something so hopeful - bringing the generations together so they can enhance each other. I love the idea of the local knowledge of older generations being paired with the tech savvy energy of younger generations - producing a ... super power?  It it strikes me as particularly valuable here when we are talking about our earth, which we all share. 

ATTN EVERYONE - if you haven't done so yet, check out their website: https://nrca.uconn.edu/students-adults/index.htm
Great videos and information about this amazing project.

Hi George,

Thank you for watching our presentation and joining the conversation!

We administer post-workshop surveys to evaluate our participants' feedback on how well they were able to learn how to use new technology and how to apply that technology toward their conservation projects. We typically also include follow-up interviews once their projects are complete. Overall, teen and adult participants reported that it was easy to use Zoom and Google Drive and felt comfortable communicating with program leaders through the video platform. Over 70% of respondents indicated that the virtual setting enhanced their ability to learn and apply new technology. We plan to collect more longitudinal data during the final year of our project and will be better able to document any progress in participants' skills over time.

Last year, most of the teaching occurred synchronously during our two-day virtual workshop. However, we also provide a variety of resources on our website either created or curated by our instructors: online tutorial videos, webinars, reference guides, etc. These are easily accessible to our participants but do take time to record or assemble. After the workshop, we support participant teams one-on-one as they carry out their conservation projects. Some teams need more help than others so it's difficult to say exactly how much time is spent, but one example is meeting with a team online for an hour to walk through creating an ArcGIS StoryMap.

 

Yes, it's that extended "tail" of answering questions and encouraging those who, for whatever reasons, are slower to understand the sometimes seemingly complex ways required by electronic activities.  It's important to document the ways that helped students who have difficulties.

Thank you so much, Luiz :)

I would say that the group of participants we had last summer were mostly already fairly interested in nature. We were well into our program recruitment season when COVID hit and unfortunately we lost quite a few participants that had registered by that point, especially students from more urban communities. Schools were really struggling to figure out online learning and some districts were more impacted than others with students not having access to technology. I have a feeling that a lot of the students (and even a few adults) that had signed up for our program before the pandemic but then "disappeared" from communication are the ones that would have most felt a new spark of interest in the outdoors.

We've modified our recruitment strategy a bit this year, are forging stronger connections with teachers in specific communities, and are really hoping to attract more students who don't already see themselves as "environmentalists" or "outdoorsy types."

Thank you, Julie!