Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Workshop 2 - Amy Timmerman

30 views

Published on

North Central Region One Water Action Forum

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Workshop 2 - Amy Timmerman

  1. 1. Youth Water Education Needs Assessment Amy Timmerman – University of Nebraska Extension Educator
  2. 2. TEAM*Dan Downing – University of Missouri *Justin Hougham – University of Wisconsin *Monica Day – Michigan State *Kristi Lekies – The Ohio State University *Zuzana Bohrerova – The Ohio State University *Christine Wood – South Dakota State University *Andrea Lorek Strauss – University of Minnesota Brandon Schroeder – Michigan State Katherin Jaeger – South Dakota State Katrina Sally Widhom – University of Illinois Bradley Cogdill – North Dakota State Rebecca Power – NC Water Network Amber Mase – NC Water Network Anne Nardi – NC Water Network
  3. 3. Why the needs assessment?
  4. 4. Goals • Determine curriculum being used for youth water education • Identify curriculum that make youth knowledgeable, passionate and active in water related issues • Identify placed-based education • Find gaps in program/curriculum either by age, stewardship or engagement
  5. 5. Where to start • Assessment of Universities • Goal 15 respondents from all 12 states • Assessment of Outside Partners • Goal 3 respondents from all 12 states
  6. 6. Questions • Ages of youth taught • Areas you provide water education • Curriculum used • Average number of contact hours • Program evaluation – teacher, youth, visual and ripple • Importance of education standards • Citizen scientist component
  7. 7. Questions Continued • Explain ripple effects observed • Examples of youth being positively impacted • What makes youth excited • Observation of increased youth involvement in community • What are you missing • How to make your program better • Barriers
  8. 8. University Assessment 230 completed – 9 States 3.91% 1.30% 7.39% 19.57% 5.65% 9.57%16.96% 13.48% 22.17% Percent of Participation by University Illinois Michigan State Missouri Nebraska NDSU Ohio State Purdue Extension SDSU Wisconsin 9 3 17 45 13 22 39 31 51 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Illinois Michigan State Missouri Nebraska NDSU Ohio State Purdue Extension SDSU Wisconsin Number Participated by University
  9. 9. University Assessment 9 30 95 61 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Early Childhood (0- PreK) Early Elementary (K-2) Upper Elementary (3- 5) Middle School (6-8) High School (9-12) Number of Respondents By Age
  10. 10. University Assessment 53 62 Single Age Taught Multiple Age Taught
  11. 11. University Assessment 15 7 3 10 2 10 4 1 8 2 Number of Combination of Ages Taught Upper Elementary, Middle School, High School Middle School, High School Early Childhood, Early Elementary, Upper Elementary , Middle School, High School Early Elementary, Upper Elementary, Middle School, High School Upper Elementary, High School Upper Elementary, Middle School Early Elementary, Upper Elementary, Middle School Early Childhood, Early Elementary, Upper Elementary, Middle School Early Elementary, Upper Elementary Early Childhood, Early Elementary, Upper Elementary
  12. 12. University Assessment Importance of Education Standards Linear Scale (1 not important – 10 very important) •6.9 State Standards • 50 Yes, 23 No Next Generation • 20 Yes, 39 No Common Core • 19 Yes, 35 No
  13. 13. University Assessment • Attitude = not my expertise, priority, paid • School = no space for hands-on, no money for buses, too many kids • Time = in general • Money = no specification in how • Personnel = need additional help – volunteers, community involvement, dedicated staff • Supplies/programs = more hands-on programs, updated printed material
  14. 14. University Assessment What pieces are missing? • Standard based water curriculum • Knowledge and resources of the educator • Updated tools and information • Many comparing it to the very structured national 4H program
  15. 15. University Assessment What makes youth excited? • Excitement of youth = educator being excited • Hands-on/interactive activity • Animals • Program • Impact – community involvement, transfer of knowledge, collaboration
  16. 16. University Assessment Early Childhood Curriculum • Water rocks • Project wild – aquatic • Water conservation curriculum – There’s no new water! • Sea grant network
  17. 17. University Assessment Early Elementary Curriculum • Project wild – aquatic • Water conservation curriculum – There’s no new water! • Sea grant network • Project wet • Rivers are alive • Water riches • Edible aquifers • Water conservation/pollution
  18. 18. University Assessment Upper Elementary Curriculum • Project wild – aquatic • Water conservation curriculum – There’s no new water! • Sea grant network • Project wet • Rivers are alive • Water riches • Water rocks • Soil & Water Science (State 4-H) • Illinois river watch • Enviroscape • Dane county water watchers program • GLOBE • Steam ecology and water monitoring workshop • Junior master gardener • Storm water sleuth • Wonderwise – women in science • Rain water town model • Idaho DEQ • W.A.T.E.R • Missouri Dept. of Conservation • Several personally created
  19. 19. University Assessment Middle School Curriculum • Sea grant network • Project wet • Water rocks • Soil & Water Science (State 4-H) • Citizen Scientist (Illinois) • DOTS Equipment
  20. 20. University Assessment High School Curriculum • Sea grant network • Project wet • Water rocks • Soil & Water Science (State 4-H) • Water conservation curriculum – There’s No New Water • Enviroscape • DOTS Equipment • Several personally created • Ohio Lake management society’s citizen lake awareness • Stream quality monitoring – Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources • Wisconsin groundwater study guide • Sand-tank groundwater model • Ohio fertilizer applicator certification and training
  21. 21. Outside Partners Assessment 46 completed – 7 States 2 4 2 3 30 3 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number Participated • Soil & Water Conservation District • Natural Resource District • Dept. of Environmental Quality • Local Watershed Coalition • Cranbrook Institute of Science • Edgerton Explorit Center • Private Nature Center • Museum • Sea Grant • County Parks • Project Learning Tree • Envirothon
  22. 22. Outside Partners Assessment 14 26 39 32 22 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Early Childhood (0-PreK) Early Elementary (K-2) Upper Elementary (3-5) Middle School (6-8) High School (9-12) Number of Respondent by Ages
  23. 23. Outside Partners Assessment 18.2 81.8 Single Age Taught Multiple Age Taught
  24. 24. Outside Partners Assessment 2 3 12 5 2 2 3 2 2 Number of Combination by Age Upper Elementary, Middle School, High School Middle School, High School Early Childhood, Early Elementary, Upper Elementary , Middle School, High School Early Elementary, Upper Elementary, Middle School, High School Upper Elementary, High School Upper Elementary, Middle School Early Elementary, Upper Elementary, Middle School
  25. 25. Outside Partners Assessment Importance of Education Standards Linear Scale (1 not important – 10 very important) •7.4 State Standards • 28 Yes, 5 No Next Generation • 13 Yes, 15 No Common Core • 14 Yes, 15 No
  26. 26. Outside Partners Assessment Youth becoming involved with the community • 19 Yes, 15 No • Clean up of trails & waterways • Stream monitoring • Volunteer numbers increase • Plant rain gardens • Installed rain barrels • Girl Scout gold award project • Participation in citizen science projects • College interns & job applicants • Habitat improvement • Operation O’Town Creek Clean
  27. 27. Outside Partners Assessment What pieces are missing? • Standard based water curriculum – how does it fit • Cross-curricular connections • Hands-on projects & citizen scientist projects • Follow-up (evaluation)
  28. 28. University Assessment What are barriers? • School • Time • Money • Lack of interest from adults
  29. 29. University Assessment Citizen Scientist Opportunities • Stream watch/monitoring • Storm drain marking • Frog watch • Pond watch
  30. 30. What’s Next? • Finalize data analysis • Compare university & partner results • Provide the list of resources currently available on the North Central Water Network website
  31. 31. What’s Next? • How to build communication capabilities with outside partners? • Dig into research and determine the best way to “train the trainer” – when does virtual training vs hands-on training work
  32. 32. Amy Timmerman atimmerman2@unl.edu 402-336-2760 Twitter:@AmyTimmerman2

×