<p> ReachOut Environmental Educator Training Workshop</p><p>Application for EPA’s Environmental Education Grant</p><p>Stefan Theimer Center for Environmental Education Dept. of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation College of Education and Human Service Professions</p><p>University of MN Duluth 1216 Ordean Court, SpHC 110 Duluth, MN 55812 [email protected] (a) Project Summary (i) Organization: The group Friends of Round Lake Refuge was formed by community members living around and near Round Lake Refuge (RLR) who support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in its conservation and outreach work. The proposed project is an outgrowth of an institutional priority shift within USFWS, which states its mission as “working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Partners for the project potentially include all regional FWS education/outreach staff, school districts near participating refuges in Minnesota, and mentorship program staff from nearby communities. (ii) Summary Statement: Early in 2007, a priority shift toward “connecting people with nature” occurred within USFWS. In response to that priority shift, staff at RLR working with Friends of RLR created “ReachOut,” a program in which youth and their mentors used RLR or another natural area as the site of semi-directed monitoring or stewardship projects over an extended period of time. In the program, youth and mentors meet with facilitators to design, carry out and report on their monitoring or stewardship project. In doing so, they increase their local ecological knowledge, develop science research skills, and have extended positive experiences in outdoor settings with mentors- which has been shown to be an important step on the road to building a conservation ethic. After one year of facilitating the project at RLR, Friends of RLR wishes to facilitate an educator-training workshop for regional FWS education specialists as well as schoolteachers and community mentorship program staff. The workshop will focus on transferring the skills necessary for the participants to create a similar and effective program at their refuge, school or other site. (iii) Educational Priority: The main educational priority addressed is that of teaching skills. More than delivering a package of content, the workshop facilitators will guide the participants through the creation of their own locally focused mentorship program. (iv) Delivery Method: The method of delivery, as described, will be through a two-day workshop at the FWS office at RLR. (v) Audience: The audience, as mentioned above, will include regional education specialists from FWS refuges, schoolteachers, mentorship program staff and other non-formal educators interested in creating their own mentorship program. (vi) Costs: The project expenses which this grant will fund include: workshop participant fee scholarships, transportation costs for participants, rental of a facility for staging the workshop and provision of teaching materials necessary for the workshop. (b) Project Description (i) Why: The development of conservation behaviors and ethics in citizens has been the subject of much environmental and psychology research over the past forty years. One theme that has emerged from research literature is that of significant life experience (Chawla, 1998, 1999), wherein environmentally active subjects identified regular activity in natural outdoor settings with adult role models as a key factor in the development of their environmental ethic. It was with this key finding in mind that Friends of RLR and USFWS education staff at RLR set about developing and implementing their new program “ReachOut: Friendship, Mentorship, Stewardship” at RLR in 2007. The impetus for the program was a priority shift at USFWS toward “connecting people with nature.” Now, with one year of program experience behind them, RLR education staff and Friends of RLR members want to share their successes and challenges with education and outreach staff from around Minnesota in hopes of similar programs being created all over the state. Through a two-day workshop at RLR, facilitators and participants will design individual project plans, collaborate on implementation strategies and network with environmental education specialists. Far from believing their program is perfect, RLR staff and Friends see this as an opportunity to improve the program, with each new participating site providing innovation and unique expertise. The purpose of this project is twofold. The first is to provide for or enhance community educators’ environmental education teaching skills through the two-day workshop. Additionally, through each workshop participant’s creation of a project plan, the second purpose is to provide community members with an opportunity for meaningful community stewardship in the context of a local US Fish and Wildlife Refuge. The project plan will describe the facilitation of the ReachOut program at their site: citizen-directed, small-scale, site-specific ecological research or restoration projects. Once educators complete the workshop, they take on the role of program facilitators and will work to meet the needs of each of their program participants. Since the research needs of the refuge and wider community are many and the interests of each participant varied, the workshop facilitator and participants will determine the specific environmental issue to be studied or area to be restored. This selection process ensures that the issue will be a salient one in the community. Further, this project represents stewardship in a number of ways. First, research results and reports add to the local ecological knowledge base and serve both refuge and community. Second, participants may choose to use the results of their research to inform a future restoration project (theirs or someone else’s). Third, participants will have the opportunity to choose a restoration project instead of research, still contributing overall to the goal of community stewardship. (ii) Who: The workshop will be managed by the FWS education and outreach staff of RLR and members of Friends of RLR. The audience to be targeted for the workshop is regional education specialists from FWS Refuges, schoolteachers, mentorship program staff and other non-formal educators interested in creating their own mentorship program. Once educators create their individual program the audience will include local youth and their family members or mentors, as well as local teachers and their students. School science teachers will likely be approached to recruit full classrooms or school programs, or to recruit individuals and their mentors or families. Other possible venues for reaching participants include: University Extension Service- 4H programs and other community programs, youth mentorship programs at area volunteer organizations or churches. As with other aspects of this project, the audience will vary depending on the context. (iii) How: See logic model (Appendix b) for full lists of inputs, outputs and outcomes. Based on interest in the program and the needs and expectations of the participants, the facilitator will help to create a plan for each participant or participant group. First, the facilitators will engage participants in a dialogue regarding the benefits of locally based, project-oriented experiences for environmental education. Having one year of experience facilitating a pilot program, the workshop facilitators will then take the participants through the steps of creating a plan, including: defining unique program objectives, identifying citizen science, monitoring and restoration possibilities for their site, practicing skills needed for the creation of a project plan with youth and their mentors, sharing difficulties encountered in pilot program, describing check-in and follow-up meetings with mentors and youth, encouraging formal or informal reporting of project results. (iv) With what: This program and the learning that will result are based on a project-based learning methodology, which has its roots in experiential learning. Often used in environmental education as a motivation and engagement strategy, project-based learning (PBL) also has been shown to promote a deeper knowledge of the desired content and improves problem-solving skills- and is effective with adult learners, in addition to children (Jacobson et al, 2006). The facilitators will use the planning sequence outlined by Markham et al. in their PBL Handbook (in Jacobson et al, 2006) to plan the workshop with participant input. In addition to the content of planning and implementing the site-specific citizen science project, the workshop will also feature evaluation training so that each participant will be able to evaluate his or her project mid- or post- completion. (c) Project Evaluation The evaluation plan for this project will take place over a period of eight months, beginning with the completion of the workshop and ending with the submission of the completed plan to EPA. Methods for the evaluation will include both quantitative and qualitative, with data collected based on two themes: 1) the utility of the project [i.e. whether participants felt adequately prepared by the workshop] and 2) the local effect of the workshop [i.e. whether they ultimately implemented, or still intend to implement their project. See the evaluation matrix in below for the full evaluation plan. The tools used for each stage of the evaluation are included below. </p><p>Evaluation Plan Matrix</p><p>Evaluation Indicators: Sources of Data Collection Design and Questions: Information: Tools: Sampling:</p><p>Do participants Participants’ Participants Participant Pre-workshop* feel able (well- self-reported questionnaire and immediately prepared) to use level of post workshop their plan to confidence in (all participants) create a mentor- creating a ship project at program. their site? Did participants Supervisors’ Participants’ Phone survey 3 months post submit a report of supervisor (all participants) proposal for the proposed creation of their programs. program? Did participants Participants’ Participants Participant 6 month post implement their self-reported questionnaire (all participants) program? status of program implementation. Did participants Participants’ Participants Participant 6 month post wish to or decide self-reported questionnaire, (all participants) to modify the plan utilization. including open- plan they created ended questions at the workshop? to determine ways in which plans were modified.</p><p>*The pre-workshop questionnaire is not provided, but will include only 2-4 questions to: determine the participant’s comfort/confidence and skill level in creating a project plan for their site, and to focusing workshop topics based on participant interest and need. Post-Workshop Questionnaire #1</p><p>When: To be administered directly following workshop Goal: Gather information on participant’s self-reported confidence in using and implementing their project plan.</p><p>1) How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the workshop?</p><p>1 2 3 4</p><p> very dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied very satisfied</p><p>2) How would you rate the workshop with respect to the content offered as it conveys the skills necessary to create and implement your own project plan? (1 - lowest, 4- highest)</p><p>1 2 3 4</p><p>3) How well did the workshop meet your specific needs, separate from the content referred to above? (1- lowest, 4- highest)</p><p>1 2 3 4</p><p>4) What barriers, if any, do you anticipate encountering as you work to implement your project plan?  lack of supervisor support  lack of time  lack of “non-time” resources  lack of skills  lack of confidence</p><p>5) How prepared do you feel in returning to your site and carrying out your project plan? (1- lowest, 4- highest)</p><p>1 2 3 4</p><p>6) How would you rate your level of confidence in your ability to implement your project plan? (1-lowest, 4- highest)</p><p>1 2 3 4</p><p>7) How could your workshop experience have been improved or what do you feel was missing? Post-Workshop Phone Survey</p><p>When: to be administered three months post workshop Goal: Gather information from supervisor on participant progress toward implementation</p><p>1) Do you support “participant” in their work on the project plan?</p><p> yes no</p><p>2) Is participant [or education specialist] self-directed or directed by supervisor?</p><p> self-directed</p><p> directed by supervisor</p><p>3) Is participant [or education specialist] required to propose programs or check in with you?</p><p> yes no</p><p>4) Has “participant” proposed or reported work on the project plan they developed at the workshop?</p><p> yes no [if yes, when?]</p><p>Post Workshop Questionnaire #2</p><p>When: to be administered six months post workshop Goal: Gather information on status of project plan implementation and modifications thereof.</p><p>1) Have you begun implementation of your project plan?</p><p> yes no (if yes, skip to question #4)</p><p>2) If no, do you intend to implement within the next six months?</p><p> yes no (if yes, skip to question #4)</p><p>3) If no, what has prevented you from doing so?</p><p>4) Have you found it necessary to modify your project plan as it was upon completion of the workshop?</p><p> yes no</p><p>If yes, please describe the manner in which you modified your project plan. Appendix (a) Timeline</p><p>By August 2008 Bulletin/invitation/announcement materials sent to statewide FWS offices and reserves- specifically those with education specialists. September 30, 2008 Registration deadline for workshop</p><p>October 18 & 19, 2008 Workshop (including pre and immediate post workshop questionnaire) January 15, 2009 Conduct post-workshop phone survey</p><p>April 15, 2009 Participant questionnaire sent</p><p>May 15, 2009 Deadline for questionnaire return</p><p>June 2009 Evaluation results compiled and sent to EPA Appendix (c) Technical Experience and Qualifications</p><p>Stephen Thurmer, Workshop Facilitator, has attended workshops similar to the one proposed over the past decade as an education specialist for the US FWS. One such workshop, upon which the proposed workshop is modeled is called “A Forest for Every Classroom”- a partnership of place- based education organizations in Vermont. Stephen also has graduate-level training in program development and evaluation from the University of Minnesota, Duluth. He has been the primary staff person at FWS regional office X responsible for the creation and implementation of the pilot mentorship project that is the focus of the workshop training. </p><p>June Morenin, Assistant Workshop Facilitator, has been on staff at regional office X since the creation of the pilot mentorship project in early 2007. She has been a key member of working groups charged with designing, planning, implementing and managing the pilot mentorship project. Formally trained as a classroom teacher- with an emphasis on project-based learning theory, June has been teaching in and out of the classroom for five years. </p><p>References Cited</p><p>Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 369-382.</p><p>Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.</p><p>Jacobson, S., McDuff, M., & Monroe, M. (2006). Learning and teaching with adults and youth. In Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques (pp. 35-62).</p>