USE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES IN DISSEMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
by
Alexey Kudryavtsev August 2006
ABSTRACT
Most nationwide environmental and science education programs, such as Project WILD and Garden Mosaics, use face-to-face workshops, meetings, and site visits to train and support educators. Computer technologies provide an alternative to face-to-face methods, but little is known about the comparative effectiveness of workshops vs. computer-mediated trainings, or about factors that limit the use of computers in
community education setting. This research examines the potential of computer technologies for training and post-training support of educators in urban community-based organizations that implement environmental science education programs. The research questions are:
1) What factors influence the use of computer technologies in after-school and other informal environmental science education programs in urban, low-income
communities?
2) What are the rates and quality of program implementation after face-to-face workshops and use of a training DVD?
3) What is the relative cost-effectiveness of educator training through workshops vs. a DVD?
4) What are the professional development, networking, and other impacts of an online forum for educators?
These questions are examined using Garden Mosaics, a national, urban community education program that engages youth in learning about environmental science within an intergenerational, multicultural, and community action context. Educators from after-school and community-based organizations learn to use the Garden Mosaics curriculum through face-to-face workshops or through an interactive DVD, and also may use computers to access digital resources for youth and educators
To determine what factors influence the use of computer technologies by
educators in urban low-income communities, I conducted interviews of educators from eight community organizations in the Bronx and Brooklyn during May-July 2005. In fall 2005, I conducted an online survey to compare the rates and quality of program implementation among 696 educators who had learned about the Garden Mosaics curriculum through workshops and/or the DVD. The cost-effectiveness of program training through workshops vs. the DVD was estimated using microeconomics principles of cost/benefit analysis. To determine how computer-mediated communication can support educators implementing environmental education programs, I conducted an online forum and follow-up survey among 30 educators from ten states who were already familiar with the Garden Mosaics curriculum during June-August 2005.
Although all eight educators in the first part of this study have access to computers, other factors, including computer skills, attitude toward computer technologies, and the content of digital education materials hamper their use of computers in educational programs. For example, four of eight NYC educators were not aware of any computer-driven tools that could contribute to their professional development or youth education programs. I also found that after attending Garden Mosaics workshops, educators were not well-informed about different Garden Mosaics digital resources that they could use in their education programs.
Of educators who attended Garden Mosaics workshops, 43% implemented the program, compared to 20% of those who received the interactive training DVD only. Workshop participants implemented a greater number of activities in their program compared to DVD users. The cost/benefit analysis showed that if Garden Mosaics wants more than 52 educators to implement the curriculum, training educators through
workshops. Most participants of the web forum reported that they enjoyed a sense of community and connection with other educators, but the forum was less successful for learning about the program and helping in program implementation.
The results of this research suggest that computer technologies can be a cost-effective means of training large numbers of, and facilitating networking among, educators who are dispersed geographically. However, the quality of programs implemented may be compromised if training occurs through a DVD rather than through face-to-face workshops. In addition, programs need to demonstrate to
educators the value of using computer-based resources in their youth programs. Future research could examine a wider array of computer-based training and support tools.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Alexey Kudryavtsev was born in 1980 in Tomsk, Siberia, Russia. He majored in environmental studies at Tomsk State University in 1996–2001, and participated in professional and academic conferences in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other Russian cities. From 1996–2004 he worked in an environmental NGO organizing
environmental education and other projects. In 2004 Alexey received a Muskie Fellowship from the US government and entered the masters program at Cornell University in the Department of Natural Resources. During the course of his graduate studies he had amazing adventures like visiting community gardens in Harlem and finding gardeners who spoke Russian, dancing with Indian and US students while on an evening cruise around Cochin Harbor in Kerala India, viewing the sunset over Lake Ontario from the CN Tower in Toronto, and exploring the cave dwellings of ancient Americans at Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Dr. Marianne Krasny, the chair of my special committee, for being extremely helpful in all aspects of this research, my academic life, and professional development during my study at Cornell University. I thank Dr. Joseph Walther, my second advisor from the Department of Communication, who helped me to design this research project, and critically analyze the data.
I also appreciate assistance of many other people: Gretchen Ferenz, Lisa
Babcock, and Dennis Bader (Cornell Cooperative Extension-NYC), Kendra Liddicoat, Keith Tidball, Jenifer Shirk, Tania Schusler, and Nancy Trautmann (Department of Natural Resources), Dr. Kenneth Reardon and Dr. Ruth Sinton (Department of City and Regional Planning), Stephanie Thompson (Seavoss Associates Inc.), and Milagros Alegre (Abraham House) and other community educators in New York City.
The Cornell Urban Scholarship Program provided financial support for conducting participatory research about the use of computer technologies in NYC community organizations.
Research for this thesis was supported in part by the Edmund S.
Muskie/FREEDOM Support Act Graduate Fellowship Program, a program sponsored and managed by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), U.S.
Department of State under authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 as amended, and administered by American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS. The opinions expressed herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily express the views of either ECA or American Councils.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2. USE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES BY EDUCATORS IN URBAN COMMUNITY SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Introduction 2 Garden Mosaics 3 Research questions 4 Methods 5 Results 7 Discussion 10 Conclusion 11 References 12
CHAPTER 3. DISSEMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: GOING DIGITAL
Introduction 14 Research questions 17 Garden Mosaics 18 Methods 20 Results 22 Discussion 28 References 31 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The schema of program dissemination 14
Figure 2. Implementation rates of Garden Mosaics educators using different training tools
22
Figure 3. Plans for implementation of Garden Mosaics among those who have not already implemented this program
23
Figure 4. The mean number of implemented activities among educators in different training groups
24
Figure 5. Relation between participation in web forum and implementation of program curriculum
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Parameters for calculation of total cost of program training 24 Table 2. Matrix of total costs of program training depending on number of
implemented programs
25
Table 3. The value of learning and social outcomes of educator web forum, 5-point scale (n = 22)
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Computer technologies are changing traditional patterns of learning,
communication, and dissemination of information. They are penetrating university Extension and other outreach programs, where they help establish new ways to reach the public. A number of environmental education outreach programs train
environmental educators and organize post-training support using disk media (CD, DVD, etc.), websites, and web forums. However, little is know about the factors that can influence the use of these digital tools by educators in community-based
organizations and after-school programs, and about relative effectiveness of computer-supported training vs. face-to-face training.
This research encompasses two studies. The first study investigates the phenomenon of the digital divide in urban community education organizations that implement environmental education programs. The second study compares the effectiveness of program dissemination using face-to-face workshops and various computer tools. The results of this research may help Extension programs to 1) design urban environmental education programs that incorporate use of computer
technologies, and 2) make informed decisions about computer-based and other strategies for program dissemination.
CHAPTER TWO
USE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES BY EDUCATORS IN URBAN COMMUNITY SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Introduction
Outreach and Extension programs are increasingly using different computer technologies to deliver services and/or resources to the public. For example, Extension programs use videoconferences for community educator training (Pankow et al., 2006), deliver electronic newsletters (Westa et al., 2005), create online communities of teachers for professional development (Schlager & Fusco, 2004), and provide
curriculum materials and other information on websites and CDs (Penuel et al., 2005; Zimmer et al., 2006). Extension staff need to ensure that communities are able to use various digital tools for successful participation in their programs. Often the ability to use computer technologies is viewed through the lens of the phenomenon of the
“digital divide,” or the gap between those people and communities who can effectively use information technologies and digital communication tools and those who cannot (Warschauer, 2003; Norris & Conceicao, 2004; Shelley & Thrane, 2004; The Digital Divide, 2004).
Originally, the digital divide referred to the lack of access to computer technologies and Internet connectivity (Mitchell, 2003; Mossberger & Caroline, 2003). Even today some studies that address the digital divide in communities served by Extension are building on the idea that the digital divide is “the gap that separates those who have access to technology and the Internet and those who do not” (Elbert & Alston, 2005). However, other studies have argued that this is a more complex issue, and have identified four factors that may influence the digital divide (Cullen, 2001):
• Physical access to computer technologies. Organizations may not have computers, other digital devices, software, and Internet connectivity.
• Computer skills and support. Individuals who have computers and other digital tools often may not use them because of lack of skills.
• Attitudes and awareness. People may have and use computers, but not deploy them to their full potential because they think that sophisticated computer technologies can’t contribute to their professional development or provide other services.
• Content. People may not use the Internet and other computer technologies because the content of digital materials is not interesting or relevant to their objectives.
Whereas access to computer technologies has been described in the literature (Elbert & Alston, 2005), little is known about other factors that are influencing the use of computer technologies in community settings served by Extension. In this study, we explore the four digital divide factors in urban low-income communities and
investigate how community educators are using digital materials in their after-school and other non-formal education programs for youth.
Garden Mosaics
The study focuses on the Cornell University Garden Mosaics program, which is funded by National Science Foundation Informal Science Education program. Garden Mosaics engages youth in learning about environmental science in urban community gardens within an intergenerational, multicultural and action context. The program’s mission is “connecting youth and elders to investigate the mosaics of plants, people, and cultures in gardens, to learn about science, and to act together to enhance their
community.” Garden Mosaics employs computer technologies for educator training, curriculum resources, and program implementation as follows:
• Curriculum on website (www.gardenmosaics.org), where educators and youth may find curricular materials, including illustrated fact and activity sheets, directions for conducting learning activities, and program overview;
• Interactive training DVD for educators, which includes footage of educators conducting activities with youth;
• Web forum, which allows educators from different cities to share their ideas about implementation of Garden Mosaics and science education;
• Online databases, where youth report their findings about their Garden Mosaics investigations and action projects in community gardens, and learn about Garden Mosaics inquiry activities in other cities.
Garden Mosaics trains educators from underrepresented communities about its program model and curricular resources usually through face-to-face training
workshops. Educators are supposed to use different digital materials/tools following the workshops when they implement the program. Garden Mosaics needs to better understand what factors can limit the use of these computer technologies by educators in order to better serve educators and their programs.
Research Questions
This research project helps Garden Mosaics and other Extension programs address the phenomenon of the digital divide in community education programs. We examined the components of the digital divide as follows:
• Computer Access, Skills, and Attitudes: What factors limit the use of digital technologies in education programs in low-income communities?
• Content: How are educators using Garden Mosaics digital materials (curriculum on website, DVD, web forum, and online databases) in after-school and other youth programs for their own training and in the implementation of their youth education programs?
Methods
Sample. Participants in this study are eight educators from four after-school programs and four community education programs in not-for-profit organizations in low-income communities in NYC. Originally, Cornell University Cooperative
Extension – NYC created a list of 100 organizations in the South Bronx that work with 10-18 year old youth, have community gardens in their neighborhoods, and have computers connected to the Internet. Educators from these organizations, which represented after-school programs, community-based organizations, nonprofits, and other youth-serving organizations, were invited to participate in training about the Garden Mosaics curriculum and its online resources for subsequent implementation of Garden Mosaics with youth.
Fourteen educators took part in a two-day training workshop in May 2005. During these sessions, educators learned how to implement the Garden Mosaics curriculum with youth via demonstrations and hands-on activities. They were briefly introduced to Garden Mosaics online resources for educators and an interactive DVD that they could use for their own learning. In June 2006, they were invited to
participate in this research project; six educators accepted this invitation; eight other educators did not participate in this research for various reasons, e.g., because of maternity leave, illness, retirement, or loss of job, and they did not implement Garden Mosaics in summer 2005. In addition to these six educators in the South Bronx, two
educators from community gardening organizations in Brooklyn took part in this research. They helped to organize a Garden Mosaics workshop for garden activists in February 2005, and also used Garden Mosaics digital resources. Among the eight educators, 7 are women, 3 are immigrants, and 6 represent minority groups (Black, Hispanic, and South-Asian). The capital and number of staff in these organizations varies significantly, from organizations that do not have an office but have more than ten volunteer educators who organize workshops in community gardens, to after-school programs, which are part of large community development corporations that have several full-time educators.
Interviews and observations. In June-July 2005, I conducted semi-structured interviews (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Mason, 2002) with eight educators to determine the availability of computer technologies in their organizations, and their computer skills and attitudes. I also visited their organizations and observed their facilities (computer labs, available digital technologies, etc.) and I conducted observations of the use of Garden Mosaics digital materials by educators in two organizations. In addition, all 8 educators were invited to participate in a six-week national web forum to help them implement Garden Mosaics with youth. Three educators participated in the Garden Mosaics web forum in June-August 2005 along with 27 other educators from 10 states; I interviewed these three educators about the benefits that they received from participation in the forum in terms of learning the Garden Mosaics curriculum, sharing general ideas on environmental and science education, and networking with peers.
Assumptions. This research is based on the assumption that its participants represent a diverse population of urban educators who take part in Extension/outreach programs. Although the sample size is not big, it allows drawing some conclusions
and opening a discussion about factors of the digital divide other than access to
computer technologies, which can help Extension educators design programs for urban audience.
Results
Access to Computer Technologies
Because educators were chosen for this research from the population that has computers and Internet access, we focused the access questions on types of computer technologies they were using. All the educators use computers and the Internet at work and/or at home at least a few times a week. Their computers are adequate to run
different software that they might need for their education programs; only one
educator had obsolete computers in her organization, and thus could not download and use some programs, like Adobe Reader (which is necessary for reading the online version of Garden Mosaics manual and other curriculum materials). Four educators have computer classrooms in their organizations with more than six computers connected to the Internet, which youth can use. All educators and their organizations have basic computer peripherals (printers, DVD players, speakers, etc.) and other digital devices that are necessary for their education programs (e.g., digital still cameras).
Computer Skills
All interviewed educators can use generic computer applications, such as MS Office and the Internet browsers. Two participants of this study had basic web design skills and used graphic design programs. Only one educator used computers just for checking emails and creating simple Word documents, and was unwilling to learn other simple computer programs. All educators developed their computer skills
themselves through “trial and error” and with help from colleagues; only one educator participated in computer workshops.
Attitudes
Attitudes toward computer technologies varied among the community educators. Four of eight educators enthusiastically described integration of computer
technologies into their education programs; they also claimed that computers can help them learn about education curricula and assist their professional development. These educators reported that they already use the Internet to download lesson plans, “find new ways to teach the same things,” look for illustrations for teaching youth in their programs, and check for grant related information. One of these educators finds that the Internet is useful to locate community gardens for her education program and access neighborhood maps for outdoor activities with youth. Another participant posts her newsletter for members of a gardening community organization on the web, which helps “to reach more people and reduce using paper.” In contrast, four educators were not aware of any benefits from the Internet and computer technologies for their education programs besides sending emails and text editing. For example, one educator wanted to become involved in some kind of networking with peers, but did not think that computer-mediated communication could help her to do that: “I like face-to-face meetings. What I do not like about computers is the feeling that we are so removed from each other. I feel you get so much more when you talk face-to-face with somebody, and you get a real feel of what’s going on and the overall enthusiasm…”
Content: Use of Garden Mosaics Materials
Curriculum materials on the website. Garden Mosaics curriculum materials for educators are available on the website in PDF format; educators also received hard copies of curriculum materials during a training workshop. Four of eight educators had
not visited the Garden Mosaics website following the workshop, because they thought that they had everything that they needed for implementation of Garden Mosaics included among their printed handouts. Only one of eight community educators was visiting the Garden Mosaics website quite often.
DVD. Six educators who participated in the May 2005 workshop received the Garden Mosaics DVDs. One of the six educators stated that she learned all the important information she would need for program implementation at the workshop, and that she did not learn much from the DVD after the workshop. Three educators did not use the DVD in the two months following the Garden Mosaics workshop. Another two educators watched the DVD soon after the workshop and found it very helpful for broadening their knowledge about Garden Mosaics. Interestingly, one educator used the DVD to introduce the Garden Mosaics program to youth (although it was created for educators). Her group of fifteen 11-13 year old youth watched the DVD on the computer, saw other youth doing Garden Mosaics activities, and became excited about participation in this program.
Web Forum. Of the three educators who participated in the web forum, one had limited experience using computers and was nervous about the idea of joining the forum. However, after a trial experience she enjoyed communication with other educators throughout the country, and, in fact, was one of the most active web forum participants. In the beginning of the forum all three educators experienced some technical problems with acquiring an account on the Blackboard system, which nearly discouraged them from participation. However, once they overcame technical
problems, participants stated that the forum was helpful for them or their programs in terms of learning about Garden Mosaics. Their messages on the web forum discussion
boards indicate that they benefited from networking with other educators across the US.
Online databases. Educators were informed at the workshops that youth can submit results of their investigations and action projects to the databases on the
Garden Mosaics website. Two of the eight educators understood the educational value of the databases for youth. For example, one of them said “I like the data-sharing and stories. It gives students the chance to write about and express their experience with the gardens; it allows them to read other experiences, so they do not feel that they are alone.” However, six educators were not aware of benefits from using these databases with youth and did understand how to submit the information to the databases.
Discussion
Because educators in this study were chosen from organizations that already had computers and Internet connectivity, access to computer technologies was not a focus of this study. Although I cannot determine whether our sample of educators is
representative of all community organizations in low-income urban neighborhoods, observations in NYC and conversations with other educational organizations from cities across the US suggest that access to computers is no longer the main factor impacting the digital divide in community education programs even in low-income neighborhoods (M. Krasny, personal communication; L. Babcock, personal
communication).
This research supports the theory that factors other than access impact the use of computers in community organizations (Cullen, 2001). Whereas lack of computer skills limited the use of computers among some educators, this problem was readily overcome with minimal support. Attitude toward computer technologies and
awareness of content of Garden Mosaics digital materials are closely related factors that appeared to be most important in limiting the use of Garden Mosaics digital resources in this study.
Garden Mosaics educator workshops included only a very short introduction to the use of the online databases and other computer-based resources and activities. In the future, demonstrating and having the educators actually use these tools during the workshops may encourage the use of computer technologies; such a demonstration would be consistent with Rogers’ (1995) “observability” and “triability” factors affecting innovation adoption. It is also possible that educators are balancing the benefits of engaging youth in hands-on and outdoor activities vs. using computers, and have negative views of the effects of computer use on youth (Monke, 2005).
Conclusion
Extension programs that deliver services via computers and the Internet no longer should be guided only by the notion of the digital divide as limited access to technologies when they work with urban community educators. Rather our results suggest that university Extension programs that target low-income urban communities need to include a focus on computer training, demonstration of computer use in educational programs, and discussing the values of these technologies as professional development and educational tools.
REFERENCES
Cullen R. (2001). Addressing the digital divide. In: Online information review. Volume 25. Number 5. MCB University Press: 311-320.
Denzin N., & Lincoln Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Elbert C., & Alston A. (2005). An evaluation study of the United States Cooperative Extension service’s role in bridging the digital divide. In: Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/rb1.shtml
Monke L. (2005). Why children shouldn't have the world at their fingertips. In: Orion. October 2005. Available at:
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-5om/Monke.html
Mason J. (2002). Qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 223 p. Mitchell M. (2003). Possible, probable and preferable futures of the digital divide. In: Informing Science. June 2003. 609–627.
Mossberger K., & Caroline J. (2003). Virtual inequality: beyond the digital divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press: 192 p.
Norris D., & Conceicao S. (2004). Narrowing the digital divide in low-income, urban communities In: New directions for adult and continuing education, no. 101, Spring 2004: 69–81.
Pankow D., Porter N., & Schuchardt J. (2006). Training educator and community collaborators using a satellite videoconference format. In: Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/tt6.shtml
Penuel, W., Bienkowski, M., Korbak, C., et al. (2005). GLOBE Year 9 evaluation: Implementation supports and student outcomes. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Rogers E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (fourth edition). The Free Press, New York. 519 p.
Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice. Are we putting the cart before the horse? In: Barab S., Kling R., & Gray J., eds. Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 120-153.
Shelley M., & Thrane L. (2004). Digital citizenship: Parameters of the digital divide. In: Social Science Computer Review, 22, 2, summer: 256–269.
The digital divide, just isn't what it used to be [The report by the Kaiser Family Foundation]. (2004). In: Adweek, 9/27/2004, Vol. 45, Issue 36.
Warschauer M. (2003).Technology and Equity: A Comparative Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 24, 2003, Chicago, Illinois. 37 p.
Westa S., Broderick, S., & Tyson B. (2005) Getting the work out in the Last Green Valley: Integrating digital video, direct mail, and web-based information for specific target audiences. In: Journal of Extension [On-line] 43(1). Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a7.shtml
Zimmer, B., Shriner. J., & Scheer, S. (2006). Use of evaluation of a statewide 4-J volunteer newsletter. In: Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(1). Available at:
CHAPTER THREE
DISSEMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: GOING DIGITAL
Introduction
Many K-12 outreach environmental and science education programs in the USA, including Project WILD, Project WET, Project Learning Tree, GLOBE, and Garden Mosaics, seek widespread dissemination of their curricula across a broad geographic area (Gilchrist, 2004; Krasny 2005; Penuel et al, 2005). Usually the goal of
dissemination of these programs is their implementation in multiple after-school and community-based programs in ways that are consistent with program philosophy. Dissemination includes educator training focusing on implementation of programs with youth; it also may include post-training support and networking among educators (Figure 1). Both training and post-training support can be conducted through: a) face-to-face meetings, or b) different computer technologies without in-person contacts. However, I am not aware of any studies of the comparative effectiveness of different training methods, and little is known about whether digital technologies such as a web forum can help achieve the goals of post-training support.
Outreach program conducts post-training support and networking Educators implement curriculum Outreach program organizes educator training
Figure 1. The schema of program dissemination
Educator training in the abovementioned programs normally happens in the form of face-to-face workshops, where educators learn about curricula and activities from
program staff. The fact that educators often prefer such face-to-face workshops as opposed to learning the curriculum just from program manuals (Gilchrist, 2004) may be attributed to several factors. For example, at workshops educators often can
observe other educators conducting program activities, which facilitates their learning (Konen & Horton, 2000; Smith et al., 2004). Also, face-to-face training provides plentiful opportunities for social learning through communication with program
coordinators and interacting with peers, and thus contributes to educators’ professional development (Penuel et al., 2005). However, face-to-face training has limited ability to reach large numbers of people dispersed across a country or multiple countries.
Some environmental education programs use computer technologies for educator training. For instance, the Education for Sustainability Development Toolkit
(McKeown, 2002) uses a website for teacher training materials about sustainable development in schools and communities. “Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future” (2002), the featured UNESCO curriculum and training program for educator professional development, is available through both website and CD. The Garden Mosaics program has developed training DVDs for educators that include video footage of educators conducting the programs with youth, and other materials that would be presented at face-to-face workshops. The International Education and Resource Network (iEARN) successfully conducts training for environmental and other education programs through several-week online workshops for educators from different countries (Khalsa, 2005). However, we are not aware of any comparative studies of costs, and rates and quality of implementation of in-person training vs. computer-mediated training.
Because learning is a socially-mediated process, educators develop better understanding of program curriculum if they interact with peers (Edwards & Clear,
2001; Resta et al., 2002; Gabriel, 2004). To learn is to build and re-invent knowledge through communication and demonstration of understanding (Gold, 2001; Curran, 2002; Ewing and Miller, 2002), which can be organized through educator networks. But many educators do not participate in networks, do not receive support from peers, lack opportunities for ongoing professional development, and even have been
characterized as having a “culture of isolation” (Bodzin & Park, 2002; Belanich et al., 2004). In response to educators’ need for networking, and because professional development generally is not effective through only a short-term “injection” of training (Suthers, 2001; Resta et al, 2002), some environmental education programs organize post-training support and networking for educators, which may take place one or many times between cycles of program implementation or continuously during implementation. For example, teachers who implement the GLOBE program may receive direct support during personal meetings from program mentors (Penuel et al., 2005). Post-training support in Project WET and Project Learning Tree includes conferences and regional teacher meetings.
With the advent of digital technology different environmental education programs started to organize post-training support and networking for educators through computer-mediated communication. Some studies suggest that people who participate in such online networks may create online “learning communities of practice” to share their experiences, stories, best practices and problem solving (Wenger, 1998; Goodwin et al, 2001; Aviv et al, 2003; Schlager & Fusco, 2004; Barab, 2004a; Riel & Polin, 2004). Walther (2002) argues that “virtual communities” can provide different types of support for their participants, such as social and self-esteem; he also emphasizes that access to virtual networks is not limited by temporal and geographical barriers usually encountered in face-to-face communication.
Examples of use of online educator networking in the form of a web forum can be found in the iEARN, GLOBE, and other programs that use online communication for professional development for educators and broader audiences involved in
environmental education (Hesselink et al., 2000; Guidelines, 2005). However, I am not aware of any empirical research investigating whether online communication among environmental educators can satisfy their needs for social interactions with other educators, and whether program staff can effectively support these educators through such communication.
Environmental education programs should make informed decisions when they choose certain types of educator training and post-training support. Their
dissemination strategy, which may encompass face-to-face and/or computer-mediated learning and networking, should help achieve program goals, such as high rates and quality of program implementation, and desired networking outcomes at low costs.
Research questions
This research contributes to the discussion about the potential of computer technologies for training and post-training support of in-service environmental educators. We compare the effectiveness of trainings through workshops and a DVD, and investigate the outcomes of a six-week web forum among educators. The specific research questions are:
• What are the rates and quality of program implementation after face-to-face educator training vs. training through an interactive DVD?
• What is the impact of a web forum among educators on rates of program implementation and what are the valuable outcomes of a web forum among educators?
We address these questions through the example of dissemination strategies in the Cornell University Garden Mosaics outreach program.
Garden Mosaics
The Cornell University Garden Mosaics program is a national outreach program through which 10-18 year old youth learn about environmental science within a community, intergenerational, and multicultural context. Educators conduct several types of Garden Mosaics activities with youth in after-school and community
education program, including i-m-science investigations (Gardener Story, Community Garden Inventory, Neighborhood Exploration, and Weed Watch), Action Projects, and short term content learning and inquiry activities on the Science Pages . Educators may implement all or different parts of the Garden Mosaics curriculum.
From 2002-2005, Garden Mosaics trained over 300 educators across the USA and in Canada through face-to-face workshops. The length of workshops ranged from several hours to two days. Workshop facilitators, who are usually Cooperative
Extension, community-based organization, and NGO educators, present the program activities following which participants conduct a sample of the activities in community and other gardens and the surrounding neighborhood.
Starting in 2005, Garden Mosaics also used an interactive DVD for training educators, with or without participation in a hands-on workshop. The Garden Mosaics DVD includes footage of community educators conducting Garden Mosaics activities with youth, and additional materials that educators might need as they implement
these activities. Many Garden Mosaics materials also are available on the program website (www.gardenmosaics.org). In 2005 more than 600 educators received interactive DVDs; less than 15% of them have participated in Garden Mosaics workshops previously. About 500 of these educators received DVDs for free during the promotional campaign.
Besides conducting workshops and sending DVDs, the Garden Mosaics program occasionally organizes short presentations about its curriculum at professional
conferences. These are not considered as an educator training, but are part of
dissemination efforts. Participants in presentations receive program brochures and are directed to the Garden Mosaics website for more information about its curriculum.
Prior to 2005, the degree to which educators received support following
workshops depended on the local organization facilitating educator trainings. In June-August 2005 Garden Mosaics conducted a national educator post-training web forum to support its implementation, and to facilitate networking and professional
development of educators. More specifically, the objective was to help educators learn more about Garden Mosaics curriculum, and organize an environment that could provide informational, social and self-esteem support. The Blackboard course
management system (www.blackboard.com) was used to host the online asynchronous communication among educators. About 600 educators, who were trained through workshops or the DVD or learned about Garden Mosaics from short presentations, were invited to join the Garden Mosaics Internet Forum. Thirty educators from 10 states self-selected and took part in the six-week forum. The forum moderator
assigned new discussion topics about different parts of the Garden Mosaics curriculum each week. Occasionally, “guest speakers” from Cornell University took part in the forum to maintain participants’ interest. Online conversations were organized in
threads, each containing an original message about some specific topic, and several messages with responses and feedback.
Methods
An online survey of educators was used in fall 2005 to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of trainings. All educators who were trained through Garden
Mosaics workshops and/or DVDs, and who participated in short Garden Mosaics presentations at professional conferences were sent email invitations to take part in the survey. Of the 696 email invitations mailed to educators, 105 invitations were
undeliverable due to incorrect address or did not reach educators because of spam control, or “I-am-out-of-town” auto-replies. Amongst 303 respondents (response rate = 44%) 238 are females and 65 are males. More than 90% of them have practical experience in education as school teachers (20%), Cooperative Extension staff (14%), or volunteers in different education programs (10%), and most of the rest are
organizers of community education/enrichment programs, outreach staff in science museums and botanical gardens, etc. Respondents have bachelor’s (36%), master’s (41%), or PhD degrees (7%). Survey participants were asked whether they
implemented the Garden Mosaics program, and what activities they used. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the significance of differences among rates of
implementation. Those who did not implement the program were asked a five-point Likert scale question about their plans for program implementation in the future (from “definitely will implement” to “definitely will not implement”). A paired comparison ANOVA was used to assess the difference among plans for program implementation in different groups of educators who have not already implemented Garden Mosaics. The paired comparison ANOVA was also used to assess the difference of quality of
implemented programs, where the independent variable was type of training, and dependent variable was the number of different Garden Mosaics activities conducted (ranging from 1-5).
The cost-effectiveness of program training through workshops and DVD was estimated using the microeconomics principles of cost/benefit analysis (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 2004). Total costs of trainings via workshops or DVD equal:
TC = FC + (VC * n/RI), where TC is total costs of training, FC is fixed costs, VC is variable costs, n is number of trainees, and RI is rates of implementation. Fixed costs of training through the DVD include the cost of its production (creating scenario, filming, montage, etc.); workshop training does not have fixed costs. Variable costs of DVD-based training include re-production and shipping of the DVD. Workshop variable costs include salary, travel, lodging, and logistic expenses for program staff who conduct educator workshops. The cost of curriculum development (“sunk costs”), which applies to both workshop and DVD-based training, is not taken into account because it is not part of dissemination costs.
An online survey of the 30 web forum participants in November 2006 was used to measure the impact of the forum on rates of program implementation and
professional development of educators (response rate = 73%). A binomial test of proportions was used to assess whether the rates of program implementation are different among forum participants and non-participants. Two groups of five-point Likert scale questions from 1-“Strongly disagree / Not at all” to 5-“Strongly agree / Very much” were used to evaluate learning and social outcomes of participation in the web forum. Two questions measured learning outcomes related to program
implementation: “Did the Forum help you to learn about the Garden Mosaics curriculum?”, “Did the Forum help you to implement Garden Mosaics?” Five
statements assessed how educators valued networking and communication with other educators, e.g., “The Forum offered a sense of community,” “I liked seeing what others were thinking and feeling,” “I felt connected to others who shared my
concerns.” The reliability of grouping of “learning” and “social” questions was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Matched sample t-test and qualitative analysis of posted messages on the forum were used to measure what outcomes were more important for educators.
Results
Rates and quality of implementation. The rates of program implementation after different strategies of training and presentations are significantly different, χ2 = 28, p < 0.001, df = 3 (Figure 2). 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Presentation only (n=39)
DVD only (n=165) Workshop only (n=49)
Workshop and DVD (n=50) Types of training tools
Im pl em en ta tio n r ate s, %
Figure 2. Implementation rates of Garden Mosaics educators using different training tools Of educators who attended a workshop and received a DVD, 44% implemented the program, compared to 43% of those who only attended workshops, 20% who only
received the DVD, and 13% who attended short presentation of Garden Mosaics at professional conferences.
There were no significant differences in plans for implementation among the different groups for educators who had not already implemented the program, F = 1.05, p = 0.37, df = 218 (Figure 3). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Presentation only (n=34) DVD only (n=132) Workshop only (n=28) Workwhop and DVD (n=28) Types of training tools
Pl ans of im pl em en ta tio n
Definitely will not implement Probably will not implement Probably will implement
Very probably will implement
Definitely will implement
Figure 3. Plans of implementation of Garden Mosaics among those who have not already implemented this program
Quality of implementation, measured as the number of different types of youth activities conducted , is significantly different among educators who learned about Garden Mosaics curriculum through different types of training, F = 6.04, p = 0.02, df = 79 (Figure 4).
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Presentation only (number of educators=5) DVD only (n=33) Workshop only (n=21) Workshop and DVD (n=22) Types of training tools
N um be r o f a ctiv itie s
Figure 4. The mean number of implemented activities among educators in different training groups
Quality of implementation is high among educators who both participated in a workshop and received the DVD and among educators who only participated in a workshop. Quality of program implementation was lowest among educators who participated in short presentations. (It is possible that some educators in this group only learned about the Garden Mosaics curriculum from website.)
Cost-effectiveness of training. The fixed costs, variable costs, and formulas for finding total costs are presented in Table 1:
Table 1. Parameters for calculation of total cost of program training
Expenses Training through
workshop
Training through DVD
Fixed costs (FC) $0 $30000
Variable costs per every trained educator (VC)
$270 $10
Rate of implementation (RI) 0.43 0.2
Total costs of program training (TC), where “n” is number of all educators who implement the program
Formulas in Table 1 can be used to determine the total costs of program training through workshops and the DVD depending on the desired number of implementation sites. Workshop training is more cost-effective for fewer than 52 implementation sites., whereas the DVD is more cost-effective than conducting workshops for larger numbers (Table 2).
Table 2. Matrix of total costs of program training depending on number of implemented programs
Number of implemented programs (n)
Total costs of training through workshop ($)
Total costs of training through DVD ($)
20 12,558 31,000
52 32,651 32,600
100 62,791 35,000
200 125,581 40,000
If Garden Mosaics spends about $32,600-32,650 for educator training (the point at which total costs of workshops and DVD raining are almost equal), it would train 120 educators at workshops or 260 educators through the DVD, and in both cases it would achieve 52 implementations of the program. However, these figures do not take into account program quality. Furthermore, these figures assume that program
implementation is directly attributable to participation in a workshop or DVD use. Because participants were self-selected, these results are indicative of potential relative effectiveness of the different treatments, rather than directly cause-effect in nature.
Outcomes of educator web forum. Participation in the web forum is strongly associated with the rate of implementation, z = 14.27, p < 0.001 (Figure 5).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No
Participation in the web forum
Ra
te Did not implement
Implemented
Figure 5. Relation between participation in web forum and implementation of program curriculum
However, participation in the web forum may have no causal relationship with the rate of implementation because forum participants were self-selected and it is possible that they were more likely to implement the program than educators who decided not to participate in the forum.
Survey questions about web forum were separated into two categories that describe learning and social outcomes (Table 3); Cronbach’s alpha for reliability of grouping of these questions was 0.814 and 0.701, respectively.
Table 3. The value of learning and social outcomes of educator web forum (5-point scale, n = 22)
Question/Statement Mean SD
Learning outcomes
Did the Forum help you to learn about the Garden Mosaics
curriculum? 3.59 1.26
Did the Forum help you to implement Garden Mosaics (if
applied)? 3.59 1.46
Social outcomes
I liked seeing what others were thinking and feeling. 4.09 0.75 I felt like the Forum was a friendly place. 4.05 0.58 I enjoyed communicating with Forum members. 3.90 0.61 I felt connected to others who shared my concerns. 3.86 0.56
I got good feedback from the Forum. 3.80 0.66
The Forum offered a sense of community. 3.73 0.55
A matched sample t-test for difference between the value of learning and social outcomes was not significant, t = 1.41, p = 0.173, df = 21. However, qualitative descriptive data (feedback from educators in emails and posts on the web forum) suggest that social outcomes were more valuable for educators. For example, in response to the question “What did you like most about the Forum?” educators wrote: “Opportunity to interact with people from across the country; collegiality, sense of belonging to a larger community”, “The Welcome Board was the most interesting - finding out who all was part of this program”, “The virtual interaction with
colleagues” and “Identifying a problem I am experiencing and then getting all the excellent responses.”
Discussion
The rates of Garden Mosaics implementation after workshop trainings are just above 40%, which is similar to rates in other environmental science education
programs that train educators through face-to-face sessions (Krasny, 2005), and twice the rates of implementation amongst educators who learned about the program
curriculum through the DVD. Moreover, compared to individuals learning about the program through DVDs, individuals who attend in-person workshops are more
successful in establishing programs with higher quality. One explanation of this is that possibly educators who have learned about the program only from the DVD were less interested in program implementation. Because they did not have to travel to
workshops, did not pay registration fees, and because most of them received DVDs for free, is it possible that some of them requested DVDs just for their information or professional development, and initially were less interested specifically in this curriculum.
However, this research suggests that the DVD-based dissemination is more cost-effective for achieving large number of follow-up because of very small variable costs, even after accounting for lower rates of implementation. Thus, programs that use the number of educators who implement their curriculum as the main indicator of success of program training (Gilchrist, 2002; Penuel, 2005) can benefit from using
instructional DVDs or possibly other digital tools which are easily scalable (Bartley & Golek, 2004) at relatively low total costs.
Although we did not conduct cost-effectiveness analysis and evaluation of quality of implementation after marketing efforts (because of small sample), we found that even when exposed only to short presentations or learning about the curriculum through the website, some educator implement the program. It is possible that after attending short presentations, these educators visited the Garden Mosaics website and downloaded educator materials. Interestingly, some other programs, such as Urban Bird Studies at the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, rely mostly on short program presentations for dissemination of their curriculum (Karen Purcell, personal
communication). Further studies should evaluate the effectiveness of this type of program dissemination relative to other means within the context of programs with varying goals, activities, and audiences.
Although originally the Garden Mosaics forum was developed to provide
educators with more opportunities to learn about the program curriculum and different examples of its implementation, it appeared that social interaction was a more valuable outcome for educators than learning about the curriculum. Even without face-to-face contacts educators established friendly relations among each other during the forum, shared their concerns and sent feedback. Because social interactions in online communities of educators can facilitate their professional development in different ways (Schlager & Fusco, 2004), it is possible that this forum will result in
implementation of Garden Mosaics programs of higher quality and longer duration because participants become more inspired about Garden Mosaics after connecting with other educators in different cities who also implement the curriculum. However, this web forum did not create a long-term learning community, which is necessary for stronger impacts on educators’ learning (Barab et al., 2004b); future investigations
need to address how to sustain online networking among educators during a long time period.
Future research projects about the use of computers for dissemination of environmental education outreach programs should investigate the effectiveness of additional types of computer-mediated training (e.g., distance online education
courses, broadcasting, static and interactive training materials on the website, etc.) and post-training support/networking (e.g., professional development online courses, weblogs, podcasts, visual communication via the Internet, etc.). As for virtual communities of environmental educators, studies need to address how online
communications should be designed so that they are sustainable over a long period and have a maximum impact on professional development of educators.
REFERENCES
Barab, S., Kling, R. & Gray, J. (2004a) Introduction: Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, in: Barab, S., Kling, R. & Gray, J. (Eds.) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). P 3-15.
Barab, S., McKinster, J. & Scheckler, R. (2004b) Designing system dualities. Characterizing an online professional development community, in: Barab, S., Kling, R. & Gray, J. (Eds) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). P 53-90.
Bartley, S., & Golek J. (2004). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction, in: Educational Technology & Society.
Belanich J., Wisher R. and Orvis K. (2004). A Question-Collaboration Approach to Web-Based Learning, in: The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(3), 169– 185.
Bodzin A. & Park J. (2002). Using a nonrestrictive web-based forum to promote reflective discourse with pre-service science teachers, in: Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3), 267-289.
Edwards M. & Clear F. (2001). Supporting the Collaborative Learning of Practical Skills with Computer-Mediated Communications Technology, in: Educational Technology & Society 4(1). 80-92.
Gabriel M. (2004). Learning Together: Exploring Group Interactions Online, in: Journal of Distance Education. Spring 2004. Vol. 19, No 1, 54-72.
Gilchrist, S. (2004) Getting Bird Conservation Education into Wisconsin Schools: A Summary of Telephone Interviews with Teachers, in: Research/Management
Findings. Bureau of Integrated Science Services. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Issue 52, November 2004. 4 pp.
Guidelines and recommendations for reorienting teacher education to address
sustainability. Education for sustainable development in action. Technical paper No 2 – 2005. UNESCO, Paris, France. 74 pp.
Hesselink, F., van Kempen, P.P. & Wals, A., editors (2000) ESDebate. International debate on education for sustainable development. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,UK. 64 p.
Khalsa, D. (2005) Support for global project based learning: U.S. teacher motivation, online training, virtual teamwork, trust and identity. PdD dissertation. College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, MD.
Konen, J. & Horton R. (2000) Beneficial science teacher training, in: Journal of Extension. Volume 38 (2). Available online at
http://www.joe.org/joe/2000april/rb1.html (accessed 1 April 2006).
Krasny, M. (2005) University K-12 science outreach programs: How can we reach a broad audience? in: BioScience. April 2005, vol. 55, No 4.
McKeown R. (2002) Education for sustainable development toolkit. Version 2.
Energy, Environment and Resource Center, University of Tennessee. Available online at: http://www.esdtoolkit.org (accessed 1 April 2006) 142 pp.
Penuel, W. R., Bienkowski, M., Korbak, C. et al. (2005) GLOBE Year 9 evaluation: Implementation supports and student outcomes. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Pindyck, R. & Rubinfeld, D. (2004) Microeconomics. Prentice Hall; 6 edition. 752 p. Resta P., Semenov A. et. al. (2002) Information and communication technologies in teacher education. A planning guide. UNESCO, Paris. 235 p.
Riel M., & Polin L. (2004) Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments, in: Barab, S., Kling, R. & Gray, J. (Eds.) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). P 16-50.
Rogers, E. (2004) Diffusion of innovations. New York, Free Press. 551 p.
Schlager, M. & Fusco, J. (2004) Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice. Are we putting the cart before the horse? in: Barab S., Kling, R., and Gray, J. (Eds.) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Smith, M., Meehan, C., Enfield, R., et al (2004) Improving county-based science programs: bringing out the science teacher in your volunteer leaders, in: Journal of Extension. Volume 42(6). Available online at
http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a5.shtml (accessed 1 April 2006).
Suthers D. (2001) Collaborative representations: supporting face-to-face and online knowledge building discourse, in: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1-10.
Teaching and learning for a sustainable development. A multimedia teacher education programme (2002) UNESCO, Version 3.0. Available online at:
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf (accessed 1 April 2006).
Walther J. & Shawn B. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support, in Lin C. & Atkin D. (Eds.) Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ). P 153-188.
CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSION
This research suggests that environmental education programs can benefit from the use of computer technologies for educator training and post-training support, which can promote wider dissemination of program curricula and facilitate networking among educators. However, program staff need to provide computer training for educators beforehand to familiarize educators with benefits from using these
technologies for their professional development and enhancing education programs in their organizations.
Using instructional DVDs or other easily scalable media for dissemination might be an appropriate choice for environmental education programs that want to reach a wide audience of educators, especially if they need to train them in a short period of time and have limited funding. However, these programs also may want to conduct presentations for program promotion and visibility, and probably some face-to-face workshops for establishing high quality implementations that would serve as models for other educators who are trained through DVDs.
Computer-mediated communication can facilitate networking among educators and can be especially successful in providing opportunities for social interactions that may lead to educators’ professional development and improve the quality of program implementation. Further studies should address how to integrate communication among program participants, and include them in networking during program training.
