annual report for award # 0528674 · information [news page], blogs from our week-long workshops...

ANNUAL REPORT FOR AWARD # 0528674

University of MichiganGreat Lakes COSEE

Participant Individuals:CoPrincipal Investigator(s) : Helen M Domske; Rosanne W Fortner; James F Lubner; Bruce H MunsonSenior personnel(s) : Robin GoettelTechnician, programmer(s) : Terri Hallesy; Nicholas ZlonisSenior personnel(s) : Elaine Andrews; Stephen Stewart; Anne Danielski; Rochelle SturtevantTechnician, programmer(s) : Cynthia HagleyGraduate student(s) : Chankook KimTechnician, programmer(s) : Sue O'HalloranSenior personnel(s) : Marti A Martz; Howard D WaltersUndergraduate student(s) : Evan HeislerTechnician, programmer(s) : Brandon Schroeder; Nicole KoehlerGraduate student(s) : Kenneth BrubakerSenior personnel(s) : Peter TuddenhamGraduate student(s) : Dorothy TsikataUndergraduate student(s) : Ann MarshallTechnician, programmer(s) : Christopher BensonSenior personnel(s) : Joel HoffmanTechnician, programmer(s) : Jacqueline Adams

Participants' Detail

Partner Organizations:Great Lakes Aquarium: In-kind Support; Facilities

Provided facilities and support for the week-long Lake Superior ExplorationWorkshop in 2006. In 2007-8, hosted two student groups for lake scienceprograms at the Aquarium, including Fond du Lac tribal school.

Great Lakes Nat'l Program Office, USEPA: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research;Personnel Exchanges

In 2006: Provided use of research vessel for Shipboard and Shoreline Scienceworkshop on Lake Erie; contributed two scientists for week's program andfollow-up with participants, contributed support for captain and crewfor use by the project.

In 2007: Dr. Beth Hinchey-Malloy served on the Center's Advisory Committee,led re-vitalization of educators' network: Great Lakes Educators of Aquatic

Preview before Submission[NSF Project Report - Version 1.2] https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/NSF_PrjRpt?@@@___64...

1 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

and Marine Science; contributed newsletter articles. Jacqueline Adamsserved as GLEAMS officer and provided outreach for teachers.

2008: Provided use of research vessel for Shipboard and Shoreline Scienceworkshop on Lake Ontario; contributed two scientists for week's programand follow-up with participants, contributed support for captain and crewfor use by the project. Dr. Hinchey-Malloy serves on the Advisory Committeeand writes for the newsletter.

2009: Provided use of research vessel for Shipboard and Shoreline Scienceworkshop on Lakes Superior and Huron; contributed two scientists for eachweek's program and follow-up with participants, contributed support forcaptain and crew for use by the project

Great Lakes Science Center: Financial Support; In-kind Support; Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

Provided coordinating site for Shipboard and Shoreline Science on LakeErie in 2006; provided educational experiences for Cleveland studentsabout Great Lakes in 2007. Supports services of the Education Coordinatoras an Advisory Committee member.

2008: Hosted Teachable Moment in conjunction with new IMAX film on theGreat Lakes; developed summer science experiences for community childrenwith O'LAKERS funding. Hosted 2008 COSEE Great Lakes advisory meeting.

2009: Provided education services for 100 neighborhood students in summerLake Erie Science program.

Internat'l Assoc - Great Lakes Research: In-kind Support; Facilities

In 2006: Assisted in distribution of COSEE Great Lakes baseline surveyfor scientists; provided carrying cases for workshop participantsIn 2007: Provided conference venue for 3-hour symposium, the 'School forScientists.'2007-9: Provided conference bookbags for Exploration Workshop participantsIn 2009: Provided conference venue for ‘School for Scientists,’ ‘GreatLakes Science for Everyone’ and ‘Education and Outreach’ as well as supportfor a special student poster session and free day registrations for teachers.

ERIE2 BOCES: In-kind Support; Collaborative Research; Personnel Exchanges

Coordinates stateside activities and leads field experiences related toTropical Marine Ecology Workshop for Teachers, all project years.2008: Provided educator and facilities for teachable moment workshop onTropical Marine Ecology; hosted site visit by new CCO leader in Sept 08.2009: Provided science curriculum specialist as participant in Lake ErieExploration Workshop

Ohio State University Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory: In-kind Support; Facilities; CollaborativeResearch; Personnel Exchanges

Hosted Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop for Lake Erie, and offeredtwo graduate courses as Marine Immersion workshops in summer 2006.


2 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

2007: Offered three graduate courses for Marine Immersion credit for teachers.

2008: Hosted two O'LAKERS groups, offered a Curriculum Development andEvaluation for Marine/Great Lakes Education. Hosted Realtime Data Workshopfor collaboration with COSEE Coastal Trends.

2009: Hosted Lake Erie Exploration Workshop, providing logistical support,research personnel and vessels.

Old Woman Creek NERR: In-kind Support; Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2006: Hosted Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop for lessons aboutestuaries.2007: Hosted Lake Erie Teachable Moment, providing facilities, staff andservices.2009: Hosted Lake Erie Exploration Workshop program about estuaries

Great Lakes Research & Educ Center, NPS: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research;Personnel Exchanges

2006: Provided facilities, support and collaboration on Great Lakes Institute,a Teachable Moment for Lake Michigan. Providing services of EducationCoordinator as member of Advisory Committee

2007: Conducted O'LAKERS program for minority high school students tolearn about Wetlands

2008: Hosted a day of activities for educators and scientists of the LakeMichigan Exploration Workshop.

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research

2006: Provided housing [at Environmental Learning Center] and other facilitiesin support of Great Lakes Institute, a Teachable Moment for Lake Michiganin 8/06.2007: Conducted O'LAKERS program for inner city students from Gary, IN,to learn about Great Lakes human history2008: Hosted teacher education program and provided scientists for a dayof learning at the Dunes during Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop

Alliance for the Great Lakes: In-kind Support; Collaborative Research

2006: Provided curriculum assistance and dunes instruction at Great LakesInstitute.2007: Coordinated O'LAKERS program to 'Adopt a Beach'2008: Provided curriculum materials and instructional program for teachersin LMEW2007-10: Representative served on COSEE advisory committee

Minnesota Geological Survey: Collaborative Research

2006: Provided field trip leader and lecturer for Lake Superior ExplorationWorkshop in Duluth. 2008: Provided scientist lecture for online workshop.


3 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

USEPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research; PersonnelExchanges

2006: Provided materials and speakers for Lake Superior Exploration Workshop.2009: Provided facilities and scientists for a Great Lakes Educator HouseCall; contributed one scientist for the week-long Lake Superior Shipboardand Shoreline Science workshop; provided a second scientist to lead wetlandresearch activities with the workshop educators.

UWS Lake Superior Research Institute: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research

2006: Contributed use of the LL Smith research vessel and presentationsfor the Lake Superior Exploration Workshop

Regional Sci Cons - Tom Ridge Env Ctr: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research; PersonnelExchanges

2006: The Regional Science Consortium at the Tom Ridge Environmental Centerat Presque Isle provided an informal learning environment, exhibits, andfilm presentation for Lake Guardian workshop participants in Erie, PA.2007: Hosted O'LAKERS program for Erie City Schools2008: Hosted O'LAKERS program and Environmental Rediscoveries experiencefor three groups of PA students2009: Co-hosted Lake Erie Exploration Workshop and provided speaker/tourleader for kayak trip through Presque Isle State Park lagoons for workshopparticipants

John G. Shedd Aquarium: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research; Personnel Exchanges

Hosts COSEE events in informal setting, provides a member of the AdvisoryBoard, collaborates on teacher education activities.2008: Hosted LMEW for a day of aquarium programming, urban fishing, andinformal education input

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary: In-kind Support; Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

Hosted Lake Huron Exploration Workshop, provided technical support forworkshop, speakers, transportation to shipwreck site for 30 participants.2009: hosted a day of presentations for the 2009 Lake Huron Shipboardand Shoreline Science workshop.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena MI: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

Provided speakers, laboratory leaders and facilities for use by Lake HuronExploration Workshop participants in 2007. In 2008, provided speaker forTeachable Moment on lake sturgeon, Cleveland, OH, and speaker for LakeHuron Fishery Teachable Moment workshop held in Alpena, MI.2009: provided speaker for Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment workshopin Bad Axe, MI, and for Lake Huron Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop.


4 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Seaborg Center, Northern Michigan Univ: Facilities

2007: Provided scholarships with O'LAKERS funds for Native American highschool students in Lake Superior Summit.

Discovery World Ltd: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2007: Conducted O'LAKERS program for Milwaukee school students aboardS/V Denis Sullivan.2008: Conducted two O'LAKERS programs for Cleveland inner city schools.

Niagara Aquarium Foundation: Facilities

2007 and 2008: Conducted programs for Native American students in HeadStart program for O'LAKERS

Reinstein Woods Nature Preserve, Inc.: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2006: Provided services of informal educator for R/V Guardian workshop.2007: Conducted nature program for elementary students with O'LAKERS support.

Grand Valley State University: Collaborative Research

Provided scientist as speaker and field trip leader for Lake Huron ExplorationWorkshop, 2007; offered a course with Marine Immersion scholarships in2008.

Central Michigan University: Collaborative Research

Assisted 2007 Lake Huron workshop through Don Uzarski, Biology Dept, Mt.Pleasant MI.

Noble Odyssey Foundation: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research

2007: Provided use of the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps and the Pride ofMichigan vessel for use of Lake Huron workshop participants, visits tounderwater archaeology sites and fisheries field work.

USGS – Hammond Bay Biological Station: Collaborative Research

Provided science support for Lake Huron Exploration Workshop, 2007

The College of Exploration: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research

Facilitates on-line workshop annually: advises staff on workshop efforts,develops video components, hosts workshop site, assists participants withsoftware, facilitates workshop flow.


5 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower GL: In-kind Support; Personnel Exchanges

2008: Provided speakers and field biologists for R/V Lake Guardian Workshopparticipants2009: Provided scientists (field biologists) for teachable moment workshop

Tuscarora Nation of Indians: Personnel Exchanges

Tuscarora Nation of Indians (Haudenosaunee)2008: Provided speaker for R/V Lake Guardian Workshop participants2007-8: Sent student groups from tribal school to Niagara Aquarium forO'LAKERS program

Thousand Island Biological Laboratory, N: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2008: Provided facilities and researchers to interact with R/V Lake GuardianWorkshop participants

NYS Office of Parks and Historic Preserv: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2008: Provided speakers and nature center facility for R/V Lake GuardianWorkshop participants

Erie County Environmental Educ Institute: Financial Support; In-kind Support

2008: Provided scholarships for inner city students to attend the GreatLakes Student Summit

NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation: Personnel Exchanges

2008: Provided biologists to present to stakeholders during the annualState of the Lake Erie meeting2009: Provided biologists to present to stakeholders during the Stateof the Lake Erie program

Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper: Personnel Exchanges

2008: Provided services of informal educator for R/V Guardian workshop.

Asbury Woods Nature Center: In-kind Support; Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2008 Provided staff, materials and the site, (Walnut Creek, a main tributaryof Lake Erie), for a day-long look at water chemistry for 40 middle schoolscience students.

Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies: In-kind Support; Facilities

2008 Provided classroom facilities and ship time aboard the sailing vesselMomentum for the Pennsylvania Sea Grant Environmental Rediscoveries program.


6 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2008: Urban Fishing Program, Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources. Providedminority science teacher to lead workshop participants in fishing forinvasive species in Lake Michigan

Great Lakes WATER Institute: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research; PersonnelExchanges

2008 Provided two scientists and research vessel for on-the-water teachereducation about round gobies in Lake Michigan; Scientists Cuhel and Aguilarawarded COSEE Collaborative Grant from NSF; Aquilar on Advisory Committee

Mitchell Museum of the American Indian: Personnel Exchanges

Executive Director made presentation at Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop

Purdue University: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2008: Department of Forestry and Natural Resources provided speaker andlab experience for Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop

Indiana Geological Survey: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2008; Provided senior scientist for presentation and field experienceduring LMEW

Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum: In-kind Support; Facilities

2008: Hosted Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop, provided meeting space,AV facilities, catered lunches

Detroit Public Schools: Facilities

Invited a display and presentation on COSEE Great Lakes at the DPS ScienceConnection Expo. September, 2007.

Univ of MI Marine Hydrodynamics Lab: Personnel Exchanges

Provided speakers and tour guides for Midwest NOSB Teachable Moment workshopfor team coaches and members. February, 2008

Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab: In-kind Support; Facilities; Collaborative Research;Personnel Exchanges

2006-7. Served as site for meeting of Advisory Committee; all years -provides support for science liaison efforts, coordinating symposia andevents for scientists, advises on science efforts for collaboration; Provided


7 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

speakers for Midwest NOSB Teachable Moment workshop for team coaches andmembers. February, 2008. Hosted COSEE Great Lakes Advisory Committee meeting, 2006-7.Provided speakers and materials for most COSEE workshops. Provided officesupport for education fellows assisting with COSEE projects (summers 2008&9). Hosted two educator House Calls (2006 and 2009).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources: Personnel Exchanges

Provided speakers for Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment workshops heldin Alpena and Bad Axe, MI, April, 2008, and in Bad Axe in April, 2009

USGS Great Lakes Science Center: Personnel Exchanges

Provided speakers for Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment workshops heldin Alpena and Bad Axe, MI, April, 2008, and again in Bad Axe in April,2009.

Great Lakes Research Consortium: Personnel Exchanges

2008: provided researchers from numerous institutions to interact withR/V Lake Guardian Workshop participants

2009: Provided researcher to present at State of the Lake programBuffalo Museum of Science. Provided scientist (ecologist) for teachablemoment workshop

Tifft Nature Preserve: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

Provided naturalist/educator for teachable moments workshop in 2009

Tom Ridge Natural History Museum: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2009: Hosted hands-on, weeklong O’LAKERS program for undergraduate studentsfrom four colleges. This experience allowed the students to understandthe importance of natural history collections and to work with expertsin the fields of botany, ichthyology, herpetology and entomology

Cobo Hall, Detroit: In-kind Support; Facilities

Provided dockage in Detroit for start of the 2009 Lake Huron Shipboardand Shoreline Science workshop.

Hartley Nature Center: In-kind Support; Facilities

Provided facilities and support for the Isle Royale Teachable MomentsWorkshop.

College of St. Scholastica: Facilities; Personnel Exchanges


8 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Provided staff support and facilities for a Great Lakes Educator HouseCall held in conjunction with the Lake Superior Youth Symposium

Large Lakes Observatory: In-kind Support; Personnel Exchanges

Provided three research scientists to contribute to the Great Lakes EducatorHouse Call held at the College of St. Scholastica as part of the LakeSuperior Youth Symposium. Also provided a scientist to speak to educatorsduring the Lake Superior Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop.

Natural Resources Research Institute: In-kind Support; Personnel Exchanges

Provided scientists to speak to educators as part of the Lake SuperiorShipboard and Shoreline Science workshop.

Michigan Technological University: In-kind Support; Personnel Exchanges

2009: Provided two scientist who each participated in ½ of the week-longLake Superior Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop and a graduatestudent who participated in the full week. All years: presented partnerworkshops on Lake Superior for Marine Immersion scholarship winners.

Isle Royale Institute: In-kind Support; Personnel Exchanges

Provided a day-long workshop for educators, including bringing in twowolf-moose researchers as part of a COSEE GL Teachable Moment workshop.

Northland College: In-kind Support; Facilities; Personnel Exchanges

2009: Provided kayaks and canoes and well as trip leaders for wetlandexploration during the Lake Superior Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop.

Other collaborators:

This project has an Advisory Committee which is made up of important individualsrepresenting aspects of K-12 Education, Science and Education Research,and Informal Education. The members of the committee and their affiliationsare: Representing Formal Education, K-16

Garry Dole (2006-10) Science Resources Coordinator Erie 2 BOCES Fredonia, NYLyndsey Manzo (2007-10) High School Science Teacher Westerville (OH) School DistrictTiah McKinney (2006-10) Biotechnology Institute Arlington, VirginiaJennifer Niemi (2008-10)


9 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Advisor, Eni-gikendaasoyang Center for Indigenous Knowledge Revitalization University of Minnesota DuluthJoaquin Jordan (2006-7) High School Science Teacher Columbus (OH) Public SchoolsDr. Tom Peacock (2006-7) American Indian Education Chair University of Minnesota Duluth

Representing Informal Education

Blake Andres (2006-10) Vice President for Education & Programs Great Lakes Science Center Cleveland, OHRachel Bergren (2006-8) Director of Conservation Awareness John G. Shedd Aquarium Chicago, ILStephanie Smith (2006-9) Education Program Manager Alliance for the Great Lakes Chicago, ILWendy W. Smith (2006-8) Education Coordinator Great Lakes Research & Education Center National Park Service Indiana Dunes National LakeshoreJoy Kubarek-Sandor (2009-2010) Education Program Manager John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL

Representing Research Science

Dr. Carmen Aguilar (2006-10) Assistant Scientist Great Lakes WATER Institute Milwaukee, WIEllen Brody (2006-8) Regional Coordinator NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries ProgramDr. Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy (2007-10) Benthic Ecologist Illinois-Indiana Sea GrantDr. Janice McDonnell (2006-10) IOOS Programmer Institute of Marie & Coastal Science New Brunswick, NJ COSEE - NOW, COOL ClassroomDr. Jeff Reutter (2006-10) Director Ohio Sea GrantDr. Joseph DiPinto (2006-7) Senior Scientist Limno-Tech, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI

We had extensive interactions in 2008 with groups applying for other GreatLakes based funding. For NOAA's Environmental Literacy K-12 grants, COSEE


10 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

personnel supported the work of - Michigan Technological University's climate change program - UW-Stephens Point's water education - UW-Madison's Alternative Reality Simulations for DecisionmakingWe also supported the successful proposal of the University of Wisconsin'sWATER Institute for a COSEE Collaboration program focused on invasivespecies in Lake Michigan.

In the COSEE Network we had relationships with other Centers: - Mid-Atlantic/NOW has is represented on our Advisory Committee - Coastal Trends did a collaborative workshop at Stone Lab in 2008 - Fortner served on the Southeast Advisory Board - We have a subcontract with California for ocean literacy and teachingCommunicating Ocean Science.

2008: National Ocean Sciences Bowl: Director Fortner served as a reviewerof geoscience questions for the 2008 Bowl, an opportunity to influencethe Great Lakes content of the events.

Activities and findings:

Research and Education Activities:

ALL PROJECT YEARS. Our mission in COSEE Great Lakes is to foster lastingrelationships through networks that link Great Lakes educators with ongoingscience research in the region and with connections of that science tomarine equivalents. It is primarily a Human Resources agenda for marineand Great Lakes education and public outreach. Our project calendar isthe calendar year.

Goals. With other COSEEs we share the goals of 1) inspiring citizens tobecome more scientifically literate and environmentally responsible throughstandards-based science curricula and programs that bridge the ocean andfreshwater sciences, and 2) creating dynamic linkages between the educationand research community. COSEE Great Lakes adds value to the National COSEENetwork by 3) adding critical freshwater components through the inclusionof the Great Lakes, 4) improving ocean/Great Lakes sciences educationthroughout the Great Lakes region, home to the one quarter of our nation'spopulation previously unserved by COSEE, and 5) involving regional Tribaleducational institutions, teachers and students in ways that improve theocean/Great Lakes science literacy of this population.Our objectives are based on approaches to the goals; each objective ismatched to tasks that we have begun to implement. Our collaboration ofeducators, research scientists and informal institutions seeks to 1) Facilitate collaboration between Great Lakes researchers and educatorsand students, Grades 4-10.2) Assist research scientists to gain better access to educational organizationsand use appropriate pedagogy in relating the Great Lakes/ocean sciencestory.3) Enhance teacher capabilities for accessing science information anddelivering high quality educational programs in Great Lakes/ocean sciences.4) Integrate ocean and Great Lakes research into existing high qualityscience education materials.5) Make current research findings about the Great Lakes available to thepublic to encourage public science literacy and appreciation of waterresources.6) Increase access to Great Lakes/ocean science information for underrepresentedgroups.


11 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

7) Facilitate direct student connections to Great Lakes/ocean scienceexperiences.8) Collaborate with existing COSEEs in uniquely synergistic ways.

Activities. Our methods include learning experiences for teachers, scientists,students and the public, teacher exchanges and experiences in marine environments,and curriculum materials enhancement to intentionally demonstrate freshwaterand oceanic connections. Based on our objectives COSEE Great lakes isundertaking six kinds of tasks: 1. Teacher enhancement through intensive and extended encounters withGreat Lakes and oceanic research (Objectives 1, 4 and 6)2. Research scientist interactions with teachers, informal educators,and students (Obj 1, 2, 5)3. Great Lakes/ocean science for the public, media and schools via informalsettings and the Internet. Task includes data use and dissemination, plusan on-line College of Exploration course (Objectives 5, 6, 7)4. Engaging teachers in curriculum linking Great Lakes and Ocean Sciences(Objective 4)5. Student connections to ocean/Great Lakes science and research (Objective7)6. Collaborative activities with existing members of the National COSEENetwork for sharing of Great Lakes connections (Objectives 1, 4, 6, 8).

------------------------------------Year 4 ACTIVITIES [YEARS 1-3 ARCHIVED AFTER THIS SECTION]

Task 1. Teacher EnhancementSince our Year 3 report was submitted, COSEE Great Lakes provided teacherenhancement experiences as follows:- three week-long summer workshops, on Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie- a 10-day online workshop- a 3-hour program for preservice teachers in New York- 9 Teachable Moment workshops for inservice teachers in 5 states- 10 scholarships for Great Lakes courses at regional formal and informalinstitutions andPartial support for- an 8-day Tropical Marine Ecology program for marine immersion- one exchange teacher to a COSEE Southeast workshop- one COSEE Southeast teacher to the Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop,andpartial support for a University of Illinois service learning course

The three major teacher enhancement events in every COSEE Great Lakesyear are a week-long Lake Exploration Workshop, week-long Shipboard andShoreline Science workshop aboard the USEPA R/V Lake Guardian, and thelonger online workshop with The College of Exploration.

February 15-27, 2009. Planning in the fall and early winter culminatedin an online workshop, Great Lakes ALIVE! Five scientists prepared voiceover powerpoint programs to help teachers and the public gain opportunitiesfor interaction with the scientists, materials to download, discussionboards for general topics, and the opportunity to earn graduate credit.The online workshop was created and hosted by the College of Explorationat http://www.coexploration.org/coseegreatlakes/.

July 18-24 Lake Erie Exploration WorkshopFifteen teachers and thirteen scientists from five states came togetherthis summer to compare notes on current Lake Erie based science. The weeklongLake Erie Exploration Workshop started at the Tom Ridge EnvironmentalCenter in Erie, Pennsylvania and wound its way along the Ohio shorelineto Stone Laboratory on Gibraltar Island in western Lake Erie.


12 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Teachers brought with them their natural curiosity and a desire to learnmore facts about the lake to share with their students; scientists broughttheir in-depth knowledge of lake related topics and a desire to help teachersincorporate this information into their classroom. Topics included contaminateuptake by turtles; water quality at swimming beaches; coastal erosion;Great Lakes estuaries and wetlands; physical science of the lakes; GreatLakes water snakes; Native American perspectives on lakes and lands; andthe geology of the Great Lakes including a hike through the Glacial Grooveson Kelly’s Island.

Highlights of the workshop mentioned by teachers included discussionswith scientists, the chance to use real time lake data, and the opportunityto get out on a research vessel and do ‘field work’. A blog of this week’sevents was created by teacher mentors, Lyndsay Knippenberg and Cindi Wallendahl.This can be viewed at: http://coseegreatlakes.net/weblog/category/2009-lake-erie-exploration-workshop/

July 7-13, 2009 - Lake Superior Shipboard and Shoreline Science WorkshopThis workshop involved 15 teachers from IN, MI, MN, OH and WI, aboardthe USEPA’s R/V Lake Guardian. The group boarded the vessel in Duluth,MN for a tour of the Duluth-Superior harbor with accompanying commentaryby a diverse group of scientists, and followed the tour with an eveningprogram at the Great Lakes Aquarium. After an overnight at the dock inDuluth the group departed for a week-long sampling and exploration voyagethat began along the north shore of Lake Superior and worked through thewaters around Isle Royale before docking in mid-voyage at Houghton, MIfor a staff change. While in Houghton, the group visited the historicQuincy Mine site, once one of the many copper mines in the area, and thenvisited the National Park Service office for a presentation on Isle Royale. From Houghton the vessel sailed to Washburn WI for a day-long shore-basedactivity on the wetlands of Fish Creek slough led by Annett Trebitz ofUSEPA and Nancy Auer of Michigan Technological University, as well asDr. Jay Austin, speaking on climate warming. The group left Washburnin late afternoon and cruised through the Apostle Islands National Lakeshorebefore returning to Duluth for the conclusion of the workshop. The researchdata collected is part of the USEPA’s Great Lakes routine monitoring andwas also collected as part of an ongoing research program on the benthicamphipod Diporeia sp. conducted by Dr. Martin and Nancy Auer, MichiganTechnological University. Throughout the workshop the participating teacherscontributed to a daily “blog” of their activities. They concluded theweek-long, intensive learning experience with group presentations thatprovided a summary of the data collection results and analysis relativeto a research question identified by each group, and discussed how theywould bring the workshop experiences and Great Lakes science into theirclassrooms or learning environments.

July 25-31, 2009. Lake Huron Shipboard and Shoreline Science CourseThis course involved 15 teachers representing every Great Lakes stateaboard the USEPA’s R/V Lake Guardian. The group boarded in Detroit, MIand traveled through the Huron-to-Erie corridor to Lake Huron, where theweek was spent conducting research and learning from scientists from PortHuron to the Straits of Mackinaw. A day was spent ashore in Alpena, MIlearning about research in marine archaeology conducted at NOAA’s ThunderBay National Marine Sanctuary, and fisheries research conducted by MichiganDNR and US Fish & Wildlife Service scientists. The cruise concluded inMilwaukee, with a tour of the University of Wisconsin’s WATER Institute. The research that the teachers collected is part of the USEPA’s GreatLakes data set. Two minority teachers participated and 8 other teachersrepresented schools that had minority student populations above 50%, with5 schools having between 90% - 100% minority students. The teachers interactedwith 15 scientists during the week. A web “blog” helped to track thecourse and a number of teachers had their students follow the course online. The teachers received a COSEE GL curriculum CD and were asked to review


13 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

the lessons in preparing their final presentations. Evaluation resultsare pending, but two teachers have invited the workshop coordinator toco-present a session at the Ohio science teachers association [SECO] ontheir research cruise experience.

Other Teacher Enhancement opportunities were shorter and took the formof Teachable Moments. These are done on a lake-by-lake basis and are typicallydrive-in one-day events. - State of Lake Erie Meeting [NY]. The program introduced over 250 stakeholders,including a high school students, undergraduate students from the SUNYBuffalo, graduate students from Buffalo State College and undergraduatestudents from SUNY Fredonia. Three scientists from the NYS Departmentof Environmental Conservation presented talks on the warm water fisheryand the status of salmonids and muskellunge in Lake Erie. A researcherfrom Niagara University and the GL Research Consortium presented a talkon the biology of Lake Erie. This meeting is highly regarded by the stakeholderswho attend and is the only public meeting in Western New York that dealswith the biology of Lake Erie. - Lake Erie: - MAEOE field trip with Inland Seas

- Lake Ontario: The first of 4 teachable moment workshops took place on April 29, andwas held in conjunction with the Buffalo Museum of Science and Tifft NaturePreseve. The workshop focused on Lake Erie and highlighted classroomactivities found in the COSEE GL CD – Greatest of the Great Lakes. The21 educators had a field experience with the Museum’s ecologist and aTifft naturalist to immerse the group into learning about the lake’s ecology. The rest of the program featured a number of classroom activities thatthe teachers became familiar with so they would use them in their ownclassroom. The evaluations were positive and the teachers were appreciativeof the materials and copies of the CD they received. Three Invasive Species and the Erie Canal workshops were offered on July28 and 29, and August 26. Although 2 workshops were originally scheduled,the great interest by teachers caused the addition of a third workshopto handle the overflow of educators. There were 56 teachers representinggrades 4th-11th from city and suburban schools and one non-formal educator. The high level of interest in these workshops is driven by the fact thatinvasive species are an important science topic and that the Erie Canalis covered in the fourth grade curriculum in NY and many teachers wantto incorporate science topics when they are covering material on the canal. The workshops include classroom instruction by USFWS biologists and aSea Grant educator followed by a boat tour of the canal and an electro-shockingsession where fish are captured so the educators can truly experienceliving invasive species. According to the evaluations, 100% of the teachersindicated that they would use the information and material from the workshopin their classrooms during the upcoming school year and more than 75%considered the workshop one of the best they have been involved with.

- Lake Huron - Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment Workshop. Bad Axe,MI. Day long workshop on the Lake Huron fishery with a COSEE Great Lakesbreakout for teachers. April 4, 2009; MAEOE workshop for teachers aboardInland Seas schoolship, in conjunction with annual meeting.COSEE GL Workshop for Pre-service Teachers - Lake Superior, May 15, 2009, during the Lake Superior Youth Symposium (May 14-17, 2009)held at the College of St. Scholastica in Duluth, Minnesota, nine middleand high school teachers and one facilitator met with three Universityof Minnesota Duluth scientists for an hour and 45 minutes. The scientists,all from the University of Minnesota Large Lakes Observatory, gave short


14 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

presentations about the research they are currently conducting. Afterwardsthe teachers introduced themselves and entered into a discussion witheach other and the scientists about ways to integrate current researchinto classroom activities, the hope being that students will become moreeager to learn about science by being exposed to the latest discoveriesand challenges.

Marine Immersion Scholarships:For 2009, twenty scholarships were awarded. Nine scholarships went toeducators enrolled in the Tropical Marine Ecology Program. Eleven additionalscholarships were awarded to teachers from the Great Lakes to attend thefollowing courses from Michigan Technological University: Great LakesWatershed Investigations [one teacher], Global Change [2 teachers], threeteachers took 4 different courses at F.T. Stone Lab, two went to the Bahamasworkshop with the Shedd Aquarium, one was assisted with credit for theLake Erie Exploration, and Jeff Hoyer was our teacher exchange with COSEESoutheast for a Coastal Legacy Workshop.

Tropical Marine Ecology CourseIn August, a group of 14 including 12 teachers, a pre-service teacherand one non-formal educator headed to Roatan, Honduras, to learn abouttropical marine ecology. The group spent the week studying the biodiversityof coral reef ecosystems and related habitats such as mangroves and seagrass communities while working side-by-side with 2 marine biologists.The group had 2 lectures each day followed by snorkeling/diving experiencesin the clear tropical waters of the Bay Islands where they observed lifeforms from small cleaner shrimp to large predatory groupers. They tookpart in lab activities such as an algae pick that showed them the diversityfound in microhabitats. The educators swam and interacted with bottlenosedolphins, including a calf that had been born the day before. The courseis designed to help educators transform life science and social studieslessons with materials and experiences that will allow their studentsto construct their own models of these complex but crucial ecosystems. The Roatan location was selected because it is home to the Roatan Instituteof Marine Science, which provided classroom and laboratory space for theteachers. A web blog was created for the teachers to share with theirstudents in the upcoming school year. http://tme09.blogspot.com/As a follow-up to the course, the group received a jump drive filled withinformation on Ocean Literacy, underwater photos and Powerpoint presentationsthat they can use in their classroom to help teach their students theessential principles and fundamental concepts that they learned aboutand experienced first-hand during the course. A follow-up meeting isheld in September to have teachers interact and network on using the materialsthey learned in the classroom. This meeting includes teachers from previousTME courses who share their experiences with this year’s participants.

Evaluation Innovations for Task 1. The external evaluator has been ableto provide survey results to the regional COSEE GL team prior to the implementationof workshops. In similar fashion, follow-up surveys have been revisedfor online administration—in conjunction with the development of an Excel-basedmaster participant database of over 1200 individuals —to facilitate fasterimplementation and turn-around of participant feedback to the COSEE GLteam. Additionally, the external evaluator is now attending the entire Explorationworkshop and a Lake Guardian workshop annually and implementing dailyformative assessments with real-time feedback to the COSEE GL team duringthe week to guide their responses while programs can still be refinedin a way to impact current participants. He is conducting research oncontent growth among educator participants using a daily concept mappingexercise [see Contributions], and has had a manuscript on this process


15 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

and its results accepted for publication.

Task 2. Research Scientist Interactions

School for ScientistsCOSEE Great Lakes’ School for Scientists is the cornerstone of our programfor providing professional development for scientists in the area of outreacheducation. The 2009 School for Scientists took place at the InternationalAssociation for Great Lakes Research Annual Conference in Toledo, Ohio. The 2009 workshop was a full day session of paired scientist-educatorpresentations highlighting examples of ways that scientists have becomeengaged in educational outreach and featuring the benefits of such partnershipsto both scientists and educators

Educator House Calls are designed to bring educators into science settingsas the experts who are needed for successful outreach by the scientiststo classrooms. Two House Calls were conducted in 2009, one in Minnesotaand one at GLERL in Michigan.

- July 15, 2009, NOAA GLERL. Seven educators met with scientists andoutreach specialists at NOAA GLERL’s main laboratory. The focus of theHouse Call was to assess educator needs that might be filled using existingNOAA GLERL data and to assess on-line formats and mechanisms needed todeliver data to classrooms. Seven GLERL scientists and 3 outreach partnersparticipated in addition to the organizing staff. Educator recommendationswere published as NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-149. Some recommendationswere implemented within the week following the workshop, others are beingincorporated into long-term efforts.

COSEE Great Lakes Educator House CallMay 16, 2009, during the Lake Superior Youth Symposium (May 14-17, 2009)six middle and high school teachers and one teacher educator met withsix U.S. EPA scientists at the Mid-Continent Ecology Division Laboratoryin Duluth, Minnesota, for two hours and 30 minutes. The scientists gaveshort presentations about the research they are currently conducting.The teachers were encouraged to ask a lot of questions. After each talkand at the end of the session, teachers and scientists talked about waysto integrate current research into classroom activities and about waysto make scientific research more accessible to the teachers.

Evaluation innovations for Task 2: The evaluator now routinely followsup with program scientists, asking for feedback on their experiences,plans for collaboration, additional needs. He also collects data usingquestions from the Baseline Study [Kim & Fortner 2007] to assess COSEEprogress with researchers.

Task 3. Informal and Internet activities

Great Lakes Alive! – an online virtual workshop connected educators andscientists during a two week period from February 16-27, 2009. This wasthe third year that COSEE Great Lakes had organized and produced thistype of workshop. This workshop focused broadly on the biology of theGreat Lakes and it featured research scientists from around the GreatLakes.

Great Lakes Alive! began with a workshop introduction by Dr. Rosanne Fortner.She was followed by Dr. Carmen Aguilar-Diaz (Great Lakes Water Instituteand University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), Tom Nalepa (Great Lakes EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory, NOAA in Ann Arbor, MI), Dr. Randal Snyder (BuffaloState College, NY), Dr. David Lodge (Center for Aquatic Conservation,


16 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Notre Dame, IN), and Dr. Deborah Swackhamer (University of Minnesota).Their topics, in order, were:- Plankton and Benthos of the Great Lakes- Great Lakes Food Web- Great Lakes Fisheries- Invasive Species and the Great Lakes- Environmental Health and Human Interactions

Twenty-six participants in Great Lakes Alive signed up to do the workshopfor credit through the University of Minnesota Duluth. Twenty-three ofthose participants followed through with active participation. They averaged26 separate visits to the online workshop, spending an average of 9.3hours of time online with the materials. (It should be noted that somematerials could be downloaded and reviewed off-line.) In total 139 peopleparticipated in the workshop. Participants ranged from people who self-identifiedas teachers and faculty to 4-H leaders and other non-formal educationalleaders.

COSEE Great Lakes uses its web site as the primary means of communicationwith the broader audience of educators and scientists in our 8-state region.

The internet activities described and/or disseminated at http://coseegreatlakes.netin Year 4 included - Archiving of events by year and access to Workshop weblogs throughanchored text - Development and dissemination of four additional issues of our quarterlynewsletter, Sweetwater Seascape, in collaboration with GLEAMS, the regionalchapter of NMEA http://www.coseegreatlakes.net/newsletter/nl7.html - 9 News briefs related to program activities and personnel, updatingvisitors regularly to demonstrate dynamic project: http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/ - Announcements of program events, including application forms http://coseegreatlakes.net/events/

Plans for the coming year include development of a page of annotated linksrecommended by the scientists in our workshops, and posting of PowerPointprograms for use by educators.

Task 4. Engaging teachers in curriculum

Progress on Fresh and Salt Curriculum Development• Made the final selection of Fresh & Salt activities to be sent out forpilot test phase based on Curriculum Committee input and criteria• Developed the Pilot Test Activity Assessment Form• Coordinated the pilot test of 26 marine and Great Lakes activities,acquiring 15 teachers from the Great Lakes region as reviewers• Invited 5 teachers from Illinois and Indiana to participate in the pilottest (although time constraints prevented them from conducting the pilotreview in the spring, several have committed to testing activities inthe fall)• Initiated logo design for the curriculum. In 2010, we will disseminate the curriculum nationally as a COSEE GreatLakes product.

GLOS Curriculum DevelopmentDuring the past year, based on feedback from reviewers, we have restructured‘Teaching with GLOS’ lessons into 3 units: 1) Dead zones, 2) Fish finders,3) Great Lakes extremes. Each unit contains 3-4 lessons. The lessons havebeen evaluated by experienced educators and remaining lessons are beingpiloted in classrooms in order to iron out any lingering issues. MichiganSea Grant plans to offer ‘Teaching with GLOS’ curriculum on-line via Moodle,


17 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

an open-source Course Management System (CMS)/ Learning Management System(LMS)/ Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), that will allow the materialsto be more fluid (e.g., than .pdfs) incorporating elements that will enhancethe curriculum. The ‘Teaching with GLOS’ on-line curriculum will alsobe paired with NOAA/GLERL physical and biological datasets compiled byEastern Michigan University students through support of a NOAA educationgrant. This pairing will allow educators access to specific datasets toexpand their use of data in the classroom.

Task 5. Student interactions with science

During the year only 10 O’LAKERS programs were funded, providing supportto about 300 students. Data currently reflect that these students areprimarily African American, but also include Latina/o and Native Americanstudents. Most of these students are from low SES environments and areconsequently considered “at risk” by most measures. The groups served in Year 4 included: New York: Niagara Aquarium, Reinstein Woods Nature Center, ChautauquaLake High SchoolMichigan O’LAKERS: funds in support of two Inland Seas cruise workshopsfor Native American high school studentsPennsylvania O’LAKERS• Ninety-five 6th -10th grade students from five school districts wereexposed to Great Lakes science aboard the Denis Sullivan. September 2008

• Pennsylvania: Undergraduate students from four colleges (Penn StateBehrend, Clarion University, Edinboro University and Grove City College)participated in a weeklong, hands-on intensive introduction to taxonomyand collection methods in the Natural History Museum at the Tom RidgeEnvironmental Center. January 2009 (four students)

Ohio O’LAKERS• Great Lakes Science Center, 100 students from inner city neighborhoodcenters [associated with local districts] served through Lake Erie Weekprogramming• Thirty-four 4th-6th graders from Gearity School, Cleveland Heights,participated in a 2-day workshop at Stone Laboratory.

Wisconsin O’LAKERS• 37 students from Superior Wisconsin had a behind the scenes workshopon Superior Science at the Great Lakes Aquarium

Service-Learning Course at University of IllinoisA Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences service-learning courseat the U of I was developed to engage students in relevant and meaningfulservice that extended learning outside the classroom and into local communityschools. In addition to enhancing academic understanding about environmentalconcepts, 22 university students learned how to identify community assets;how to value diversity in underserved populations; how to affect change;and how to develop leadership and communication capacities to inspireenvironmental action in others to prevent spread of aquatic invaders.The university students taught children, of many different backgroundsand learning levels, in 4 schools about important environmental issues.Their instruction included hands-on activities that underscored the needfor action to remove/prevent the spread of these invaders. In addition,students learned how the material being presented related to their day-to-daylives. This learning culminated in a stewardship fair where studentspresented their community-based projects. The activities led by the UIstudents sparked an interest in young minds on the importance of environmentalissues such as invasive aquatic species and conservation.


18 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Through COSEE Great Lakes, instructors provided the participating schoolteachers with a resource packet of COSEE Great Lakes curriculum, Teacherprofessional development/ scholarship opportunities, and Ocean Literacyprinciples.

Task 6. COSEE Network collaborative efforts

Teacher exchange with COSEE Southeast continued in Year 4. Kathy Bosiak,high school teacher from North Carolina, came to the Lake Erie ExplorationWorkshop and contributed ideas for matching Great Lakes and ocean content.Jeff Hoyer went to the COSEE Southeast Workshop in Georgia.

Director Fortner served the COSEE Network in 2009 with - Chairing and reviving the Evaluation Working Group to assist with developmentof data collection “bins” for the coming COSEE Decadal Review.- reviewing song lyrics for the Banana Slug String Band’s Ocean Literacyalbum for COSEE- sharing publications about scientist-educator collaboration - input to the Best Practices workshop on teacher professional developmentbackground - staffing the COSEE exhibit at NSTA - expanding and submitting 30 ticker tape messages for the Sant OceanHall, Smithsonian

COSEE Great Lakes finalized a subcontract with COSEE California for oceanliteracy equivalent principles in the Great Lakes. We are also negotiatingwith faculty for teaching Communicating Ocean Science at the Universityof Michigan, also with support of COSEE California.

Director Fortner worked with the newly funded COSEE Collaborative in Milwaukeeto recruit teacher participants for the Collaborative’s first workshopand to provide follow-up support in terms of materials for classroom use.

Advisor Jennifer Niemi served on the national “Culturally reliable andvalid program evaluation group” representing Native Americans

--------------------------------------------Year 3 ACTIVITIES [YEARS 1-2 ARCHIVED AFTER THIS SECTION AND IN ATTACHMENT]

Task 1. Teacher EnhancementSince our Year 2 report was submitted, COSEE Great Lakes provided teacherenhancement experiences as follows:- two week-long summer workshops, in IL and on Lake Ontario in NY- a 10-day online workshop- a 3-hour program for preservice teachers in New York- 12 Teachable Moment workshops for inservice teachers in 5 states- 10 scholarships for Great Lakes courses at Michigan Tech andPartial support for- an 8-day Tropical Marine Ecology program for marine immersion- a 4-day Realtime Aquatic Data workshop collaborative with COSEE CoastalTrends- one exchange teacher to a COSEE Southeast workshop- one COSEE Southeast teacher to the Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop,andpartial support for a University of Illinois service learning course

The three major teacher enhancement events in every COSEE Great Lakesyear are a week-long Lake Exploration Workshop, week-long Shipboard and


19 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Shoreline Science workshop aboard the USEPA R/V Lake Guardian, and thelonger online workshop with The College of ExplorationPlanning in the fall and early winter culminated in an online workshop,The Great Lakes ROCK!, from January 28-February 8, 2008. Six scientistsprepared voice over powerpoint programs to help teachers and the publicunderstand the geology of the Great Lakes. These were presented asynchronouslywith opportunities for interaction with the scientists, materials to download,discussion boards for general topics, and the opportunity to earn graduatecredit. The online workshop was created and hosted by the College of Explorationat http://www.coexploration.org/coseegreatlakes/. Over 400 people registeredto use the online workshop this year and the data shows that 268 of thosespent time in the online Great Lakes room where most of the workshop contentwas delivered. Additional participants may have spent time online in other“rooms” for the online workshop as they explored other resources thatwere offered. More information is presented in the Findings section ofthis report.

August 2-8. Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop This intensive week-long workshop promoted Great Lakes and oceansciences in formal and informal education and forged lasting relationshipsbetween scientists and educators. Participants were involved in classroomand field programs, worked with scientists, examined curricula and otherresources including Websites with data sets, and explored classroom activitiesrelating to the Great Lakes and ocean resources. Sixteen teachers from throughout the Great Lakes and our partneringteacher from the Atlantic coast left Chicago feeling energized, well-informed,and ready to bring Lake Michigan and its watershed into their classrooms.A blog of the week’s events was created by our teacher mentors, Anne-MariePotter and Jen Fleck. It can be found at http://coseegreatlakes.net/weblog/category/lake-michigan-explor Our six scientists provided a high quality educational experiencefor the teachers. Our teachers will make good use of the materials andknowledge they gained. Learning directly from the scientists doing theresearch was extremely valuable to every participant.

July 13-19. Shipboard and Shoreline Science CourseThis course involved 16 teachers representing New York including at leastone educator from each of the 5 Great Lakes, aboard the USEPA’s R/V PeterWise Lake Guardian. The group boarded in Buffalo, NY, and headed up theWelland Canal to Lake Ontario, where they spent the following week conductingresearch and learning from scientists from one end of the lake to theother. The research that the teachers collected is part of the USEPA’sGreat Lakes data set and the Lake Ontario Lower Aquatic Foodweb Study(LOLA). Two minority teachers participated and 6 other teachers representedschools that had high minority populations, with 5 schools having between98% - 100% minority students. The teachers interacted with 17 scientistsduring the week, including 10 representing minorities or underrepresentedgroups. An enlightening presentation from a female environmental scientistfrom the Tuscarora Nation of Indians helped the teachers understand nativebeliefs and customs related to Lake Ontario. A web “blog” helped to trackthe course and a number of teachers had their students follow the courseonline. The teachers received a COSEE GL curriculum CD and were askedto demonstrate one of the lessons from the collection, thus becoming familiarwith 16 of the classroom lessons from the CD. The evaluations indicatedthat all of the teachers will utilize what they learned with their students. One of the teachers sent up a follow-up message that read, “I just wantto thank you again for the incredible job that you did providing experiencesthat I will not only never forget, but that continue to inspire me ona daily basis as to how I can learn more, incorporate more and inspireothers. I know that my personal and professional life will never be quitethe same.” Another teacher wrote, “Thanks for the greatest workshop inmy 20 years as a teacher! It was outstanding experience and I am still


20 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

trying to digest all that I learned.”

Other Teacher Enhancement opportunities were shorter and took the formof Teachable Moments. These are done on a lake-by-lake basis and are typicallydrive-in one-day events. - State of the Lake Meeting [NY]. This annual program reached over 250stakeholders and included a high school environmental science class anda graduate freshwater ecology class from Buffalo State College. Threescientists from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation presentedtalks on invasive species, the warmwater fishery and the status of salmonidspecies in Lake Erie. A researcher from the Aquatic Animal Health Program,Cornell University, provided a research update on VHS (Viral HemorrhagicSepticemia). This meeting is the only public meeting in Western New Yorkthat deals with the biology of Lake Erie and it is highly regarded bythe stakeholders who attend. - Lake Erie: Mysteries of the Great Lakes at the Cleveland Great LakesScience Center, May 16, 2008. With the premier of a new IMAX film in whichthe Lake Sturgeon’s life reflects on changes in the Great Lakes, educatorsgathered in Cleveland to examine the science of the lakes with sturgeonspecialist Jim McFee of the USFWS Alpena office. - Lake Ontario: Four different workshops were held this year. The firsttook place on March 11, and was held in conjunction with the Erie 2 Boardof Cooperative Educational Services [BOCES] at their educational resourcecenter. The Biodiversity and Coral Reef Ecology workshop was attendedby 11 teachers who learned how to incorporate marine topics into theirclassrooms. Four COSEE GL teachers, who took part in the summer 2007Tropical Marine Ecology class in Curacao, shared classroom activitiesthat they have used with their students. Science coordinator Garry Dole,helped with the instruction for the workshop. Although not a marine biologistby trade, Garry is well versed in marine biology having served as a co-leaderof many courses in the marine environment. - Three Invasive Species and the Erie Canal workshops were offered onJuly 24th, August 20 & 21. Although 2 workshops were originally scheduled,the great interest by teachers caused the addition of a third workshopto handle the overflow of educators. The high level of interest in theseworkshops is driven by the fact that invasive species are an importantscience topic and that the Erie Canal is covered in the fourth grade curriculumin NY and many teachers want to incorporate science topics when they arecovering material on the canal. These workshops help educate the teachersabout the role that the Erie Canal plays in the movement of invasive speciesand how human actions along the canal (plant releases from backyard pondsand aquarium releases of fish) play a part in increasing the number ofinvasive plants and animals. There were 58 teachers involved in theseworkshops that included teachers from 4th-11th grade from city and suburbanschools. According to the evaluations, 100% of the teachers indicatedthat they would use the information and material from the workshop intheir classrooms during the upcoming school year.COSEE GL Workshop for Pre-service Teachers - Although not a regular Teachable Moment workshop, a 3-hour workshopon the Great Lakes was offered to 12 pre-service teachers on April 1,who were involved in a graduate course at the University at Buffalo inthe School of Education. The pre-service teachers received copies ofthe COSEE GL curriculum CD and other materials that have been developedto help teachers infuse Great Lakes topics into their curriculum. - Lake Superior, October 29 – 31, 2007. 'Making a Great Lake Superior'Conference, Duluth, MN. This public outreach conference attracted a largenumber of teachers, and a special session with scientists allowed forinformal conversations and learning. Both scientists and teachers feltthe experience was extremely valuable and could lead to future collaborations. - Midwest NOSB COSEE Teachable Moment Workshop. Ann Arbor, MI. Halfday workshop with seminars and tour of UM Marine Hydrodynamic Laboratory.


21 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

February 8, 2008. - Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment Workshop. Bad Axe, MI. Day longworkshop on the Lake Huron fishery with a COSEE Great Lakes breakout forteachers. April 12, 2008. - Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment Workshop. Alpena, MI. Day longworkshop on the Lake Huron fishery with a COSEE Great Lakes breakout forteachers. April 19, 2008.

Special Events involved COSEE as well. - January 14-April 30, 2008COSEE Great Lakes funding supported a professional Environmental EducatorsAssociation of Illinois conference presentation on the outcomes of a newUniversity of Illinois service-learning course, “Community Stewardshipthrough Environmental Education,” held spring semester of 2008. The courseprovided science-based information on Great Lakes and Marine aquatic invasiveissues and taught grade school students about impacts from introducedspecies. Scientist presentations and the “Nab the Aquatic Invader!” Website (www.sgnis.org/kids) served as the foundation. The course resultedin 7 student-developed stewardship projects involving community partnersto help reduce the spread of invaders. The four teachers who were involvedin this University-Public School project partnership were science teachersin grades 4, 5, and 7.

Great Lakes Student SummitCOSEE GL served as a co-sponsor of this biennial event that brought 250students and teachers from around the Great Lakes basin to Buffalo, NY,in May, to act as “student scientists” and learn about the Great Lakes. The students conducted research in their classrooms and then showcasedtheir work during presentations on the first day of the program. Theyalso took part in workshops on environmental topics that were presentedby biologists and naturalists (including 3 NYSG workshops on InvasiveSpecies in the Great Lakes). The second day of the program had the studentsand teachers visiting local environmental learning centers like the Aquariumof Niagara and the New York Power Vista on the Niagara River. Participantsthen boarded a boat that took them out on the Buffalo River and Lake Erie. While on the vessel, they conducted water testing and learned about fishpopulations by observing an electro-shocking demonstration that was conductedin cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. COSEE GL O’LAKERSfunding helped to bring a group of students from Pennsylvania to the summit. The highlight of the GLSS was the creation of the students’ Statementof Stewardship – SOS, that included the actions they were going to taketo help protect and preserve the Great Lakes. All participating teachersreceived the COSEE GL curriculum CD, Ocean Literacy brochures and otherCOSEE materials.

Marine Immersion Scholarships:For 2008 21 scholarships were awarded. Ten scholarships went to educatorsenrolled in the Tropical Marine Ecology Program. In August, 14 teachersand one non-formal educator headed to Roatan, Honduras, to learn abouttropical marine ecology. The group spent the week studying the biodiversityof coral reef ecosystems and related habitats such as mangroves and seagrass communities that support the complex structure of the reef. Theyhad the opportunity to observe the dynamics of age-old survival relationshipsof unique animals on the reef and the pressures of an emerging touristdestination on these delicate relationships. The group had 2 lectureseach day followed by snorkeling/diving experiences in the clear tropicalwaters of the Bay Islands where they observed life forms from small cleanershrimp to large reef sharks. The course is designed to help educatorstransform life science and social studies lessons with materials and experiencesthat will allow their students to construct their own models of these


22 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

complex but crucial ecosystems. The Roatan location was selected becauseit is home to the Roatan Institute of Marine Science, which provided classroomand laboratory space for the teachers. A web blog was created for theteachers to share with their students in the upcoming school year. http://tme08.blogspot.com/As a follow-up to the course, the group meets in September to receiveunderwater photos, a DVD of underwater video and a Powerpoint presentationthat they can use in their classroom to help teach their students theessential principles and fundamental concepts of Ocean Literacy that theylearned about and experienced first-hand during the course.

Ten additional scholarships were awarded to teachers from the Great Lakesto attend the following courses from Michigan Technological University:Great Lakes Watershed Investigations [6 teachers], Global Change [3 teachers],Great Lakes Maritime Transportation [1 teacher] and the Lake MichiganExploration Workshop (Exchange teacher from COSEE Southeast).

Evaluation Innovations for Task 1. Our first annual report identifieda need for more attention to formative evaluation and to assure progresstoward serving underrepresented populations. To ensure that formativeevaluation is enhanced, the new external evaluator revised the pre-workshopsurveys for online administration in summer 2008, and was able to implementthe survey and provide survey results to the regional COSEE GL team priorto the implementation of the workshop this summer, instead of implementingthe pre-workshop survey onsite on the first day of the workshop. In similarfashion, follow-up surveys have been revised for online administration—inconjunction with the development of an Excel-based master participantdatabase—to facilitate faster implementation and turn-around of participantfeedback to the COSEE GL team. Additionally, the external evaluator is now attending the entire Explorationworkshop annually and implementing daily formative assessments with real-timefeedback to the COSEE GL team during the week to guide their responseswhile programs can still be refined in a way to impact current participants.He is conducting research on content growth among educator participantsusing a daily concept mapping exercise [see Contributions].Demographic data are now collected uniformly across the COSEE GL project. For programs for classroom teachers and scientists, formal evaluationsto include pre- and post-program surveys and follow-up surveys and interviewsare planned and collected systematically (See Findings). Finally, allformal programs for teachers and scientists now include routine trackingfollow-up at 6-, 12- and 18-month increments of time after the programsend. This includes a single 6- or 12- month follow-up survey to all teacherswho receive scholarship support for youth projects through the O’LAKERSprogram component.


Educator House Calls are designed to bring educators into science settingsas the experts who are needed for successful outreach by the scientiststo classrooms. Two House Calls were conducted in 2008. - Columbus, OH, February 25, at The Ohio State UniversityFour local teachers met with faculty and GRAs of the Sugar Creek WatershedGK-12 program sponsored by NSF. The teachers came with lesson plans, dailyschedules, textbook examples and lots of encouragement to assist the GRAsfrom science departments in the University in their work with teachers.One of the grad students continues to share her own research data withthe teachers, with the idea that they may be able to use the real studyas a classroom example of wetland research.

- From August 4-15, 2008, Bruce Munson served as a facilitator for theGK-12 Summer Institute held at the University of Minnesota Duluth. The


23 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

focus of the institute was to prepare graduate student scientists forworking with teachers and their classrooms. Part of this effort involvedhelping both teachers and scientists arrive at a common understandingof inquiry as a science process and method of instruction. The SummerInstitute also served as a COSEE Great Lakes House Call as Munson sharedCOSEE resources and taught “clay boats” as an activity to explore thenature of inquiry. Dr. Tom Peacock, formerly a COSEE Great Lakes advisoryboard member, also presented an Ojibwe perspective on teaching and learningscience for the participants. Fourteen science graduate students and facultyparticipated in the institute.

Evaluation innovations for Task 2: The project team has been concernedabout addressing our goals related to science resource professionals.The COSEE GL team gave discussion time to this element at the Fall 2007Advisory Committee meeting. Consequently, additional effort was madeto collect data from scientists who were participating in COSEE GL activities. The evaluator worked to refine interview/questionnaire items for scientistsimpacted by a Teachable Moment in Minnesota in late 2007, to develop asurvey of scientist participants/keynote speakers in the 2008 online workshop. Additional tracking efforts are underway to maintain regular communicationswith scientists—and to monitor continued interactions between scientistsand the educator participants in COSEE GL programs.


The College of Exploration partnered with COSEE Great Lakes to presentour second on-line workshop, The Great Lakes ROCK!, described under Task1. Data from the evaluation components [described under Findings] indicatewidespread interest in this form of learning and intention to use materialsand information gained from The Great Lakes ROCK!

COSEE Great Lakes uses its web site as the primary means of communicationwith the broader audience of educators and scientists in our 8-state region.Within the project staff, we are now working with our third webmasterand are establishing protocols for posting of new information in timelyways. In particular, we have developed a HOT BOX on the home page forrapid dissemination of critical deadlines and notices.

The internet activities described and/or disseminated at http://coseegreatlakes.netin Year 3 included - Archiving of events by year and access to Workshop weblogs throughanchored text - Development and dissemination of three additional issues of our quarterlynewsletter, Sweetwater Seascape, in collaboration with GLEAMS, the regionalchapter of NMEA http://www.coseegreatlakes.net/newsletter/nl7.html - 6 News briefs related to program activities and personnel, updatingvisitors regularly to demonstrate dynamic project: http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/

- Announcements of program events, including application forms http://coseegreatlakes.net/events/

Plans for the coming year include development of a page of annotated linksrecommended by the scientists in our workshops, and posting of powerpointprograms for use by educators.


Progress on Fresh and Salt Curriculum Development - During conference calls with the COSEE Great Lakes Curriculum Committee


24 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

and exploration of many exemplary activities throughout 2007-2008, thedevelopment phase of the Fresh and Salt curriculum has begun. The collectionwill include 14 activities, two per Ocean Literacy principle and be relevantfor grades 5-8. - A multitude of concepts and instruction modes will be represented,ranging from data interpretation, simulation, and decision making to boardgames, and problem solving. We plan to teach students how to make informedand responsible decisions regarding the ocean and its resources. Numeroussources for selected activities are represented including USC, Sea GrantIsland Explorers, Smithsonian Institute, National Aquarium in Baltimore,and a Great Lakes tides activity submitted by an Ohio teacher. - Director Fortner team taught a one-week graduate credit course for7 teachers at Stone Laboratory on Lake Erie, June 22-28. Teachers workedwith Dr. David Hart to learn and apply Google Earth to curriculum materials.They also reviewed the draft set of Saltwater lessons selected for theCOSEE Fresh and Salt collection, and provided feedback to IL-IN for incorporationinto curriculum planning.

Plans for the coming year will include incorporating the information gleanedfrom the review process into the final selection followed by evaluationby COSEE partners in marine coastal states, as well as pilot testing inGreat Lakes and marine classrooms. In 2010, we will disseminate the curriculumnationally as a COSEE Great Lakes product.

GLOS Curriculum DevelopmentFive “Teaching with GLOS” units are in late stage development. They include:GLOS1 Satellite remote sensing, GLOS2 Surface temperatures/fishery, GLOS3Seasonal cycles/dead zones, GLOS4 Productivity mechanisms/seiches, GLOS5Great Lakes climate/shipwrecks. There are 2-4 lessons within each unit.Each unit consists of 1-2 lessons introducing major concepts using a demonstrationand/or hands-on activity. The remaining lessons in each unit use GLOSdata (either in real-time or ‘micro-sets’). Initial review of all unitsinvolved obtaining mail review comments from classroom teachers who hadpreviously been involved in COSEE Great Lakes and/or Great Lakes ObservingSystem education. This was followed by personal meetings with four teachersto clarify and expand their feedback. GLOS 4 was piloted in May by oneteacher, with classroom effectiveness observed by COSEE staff. Revisionswere made following pilot opportunity. Three teachers will pilot GLOS3 in the fall of the 2008/09 school year, with data ‘micro-sets’ developedfor use. Results of this pilot opportunity will lead revision of GLOS3.


For this task we made COSEE support available for 11 student programspresented by partners in Great Lakes science education. Six states advertisedthe opportunity to apply for grant funds, with emphasis on service toNative Americans and other underserved groups of young people.During the2007-2008 period, approximately 20 of these O’LAKERS programs were funded,providing support to nearly 1,000 students. These students included 394elementary aged, 314 middle grades, and 63 high school students. Datacurrently reflect that these students are primarily African American,but also include Latina/o and Native American students. Most of thesestudents are from low SES environments and are consequently considered“at risk” by most measures. Contact information for the teachers andschools associated with these projects has been provided to the evaluator,who has developed a follow-up program assessment survey to be implementedin the coming months.

The groups served in 2008 included:


25 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

New York: GL Student Summit, Niagara Aquarium, Reinstein Woods NatureCenter, North Collins School, Chautauqua Lake High School, and EarthForce.

Pennsylvania: Asbury Woods Nature Center, Bayfront Center for MaritimeStudies, Villa Maria School, Wattsburg, Luther Memorial Learning Center,Erie County EEI

Ohio: Lake Erie Islands Historical Society, Alliance High School [to StoneLaboratory], Discovery World at Pier Wisconsin [Denis Sullivan shipboardprograms], Great Lakes Science Center, and St. Dominic School [to StoneLab]

Minnesota: Great Lakes Aquarium [hosted two student groups including Fonddu Lac Ojibway School]


Teacher exchange with COSEE Southeast continued in Year 3: Richard Trippfrom Georgia came to the Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop and expressedhis wonder and astonishment at their easy comparison to oceans. RandallColton went to the COSEE Southeast Leadership Workshop in North Carolina.From 2007, NC teacher Kathy Bosiak was supported by the two COSEEs tomake a presentation at NMEA on FROM SEA TO INLAND SEA, demonstrating applicationof GL curriculum to ocean learning.

John Taylor Leyman, a teacher from Ohio, participated in a COSEE OceanSystems workshop in Maine.

Director Fortner served the COSEE Network with - the Evaluation Working Group in 2008 and - the Governance Working Group in 2007- Review of Ocean Literacy Principle #2 for its Scope and Sequence inmiddle schools- sharing research results for scientist-educator collaborations

Fortner served on the COSEE Southeast Advisory Board

COSEE Great Lakes has a subcontract with COSEE California for ocean literacyand teaching Communicating Ocean Science.

Director Fortner, GLERL, and state staff advised and supported collaborativeproposals from - Cuhel and Aguillar for COSEE Collaborative Grant from NSF [successful]- University of Wisconsin – Stephens Point for NOAA Environmental Literacy[PI Lane]- Michigan Technological University for NOAA Climate Literacy [PI Burton]- University of Wisconsin – Madison for NOAA Environmental Literacy [PIHart]

------------------------------------

YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES [YEAR 1 MATERIALS ARE ARCHIVED AFTER THIS SECTION]

Task 1: Teacher Enhancement

Through our program's first two years we have organized and implementedteacher enhancement as follows:

1 Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop, one week long, with USEPApartner


26 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

2 Lake Exploration workshops, one week each2 Tropical Marine Ecology Workshops, 8 days each, with BOCES partner14 Teachable Moment workshops, 0.5 to 1 day each1 on-line workshop, one week, with partner College of Explorationand facilitated Great Lakes teacher involvement in 14 partner programs.

The population of educators served in 2007 is still growing. In 2006 weserved over 500 teachers in COSEE Great Lakes workshops, with an estimated4000 hours of teacher enhancement experiences. Among those in face-to-faceprograms, including conference presentations, about 8% were from underrepresentedgroups, and 20% indicated they teach high populations of underserved/underrepresentedor disadvantaged students.

2007. The Lake Huron Exploration one-week workshop was held August 11-17,2007, in the facilities of our informal partner, the Maritime HeritageCenter of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Alpena, MI. Twentyeducators of grades 4-10 and 15 science and cultural resource people joinedeight COSEE Great Lakes staff in collaborative learning about Lake Huron.This was the second of our lake-focus workshops, which are being offeredin “paddle-to-the-sea” order as the lake waters flow, across our fiveproject years. Daily visits by the scientists were preceded by journalreadings to inform both the researchers and educators about the substanceof each others’ professional contributions. Resource people led discussions,presented research, distributed materials, and led multidisciplinary fieldexperiences in the surrounding areas. Several participated in curriculumactivities that assisted educators in applying the science to their classrooms.At the end of the workshop, groups of educators presented curriculum plansby grade level, based on their new Great Lakes learning.

An on-line workshop was offered through the College of Exploration fromDecember 3-9, 2006, on the topic, “What’s so great about the Great Lakes?”Over 400 participants, including 20 staff, enrolled for free in the programfor an intense period of sharing of science content and instructionalsupport materials. Materials and participant interaction records remainon line at http://www.coexploration.org/coseegreatlakes . Components ofthe workshop were embedded in a web structure designed to foster a newlearning community: Great Lakes Room (Flash presentations of science &teaching techniques, discussions about the topics with scientists andparticipants); Resource Room with materials for sharing, information aboutweb sites, curricula, music, books, other teaching aids; CEU and Creditworkrooms for individual posting of assignments and discussions with coursemoderator, and a “Café” for freestyle conversation on topics proposedby participants. The workshop attracted formal and informal educatorsfrom 20 US states and Puerto Rico, plus one participant each from Canadaand China. Ten scientists interacted with the group. Evaluations are reportedelsewhere, but we feel this workshop was our greatest outreach tool forthe year. We have presented results internationally and at three nationalconferences. We were quite impressed with this outreach mechanism andwill do other topics in other COSEE years.

Our Tropical Marine Ecology workshop moved to Curaçao in 2007 and involved11 teachers with COSEE Marine Immersion support as well as four scientists.Educators learned about ecological systems in nearshore zones and on coralreefs as part of this sea-based program led by COSEE’s Helen Domske andthe New York BOCES2. Ten additional teachers received immersion scholarshipsfor marine or Great Lakes programs conducted by partners of COSEE.

In addition to the three longer workshops, we presented 6 Teachable Momentworkshops in four different states, involving 100 educators and 10 scientists,and reached out to other educators through presentations at conferences.We supported several COSEE participants as presenters as well, acknowledging


27 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

their professional stature as representatives of the program.


In Year 2 we presented four special opportunities for scientists:• Director Fortner co-organized a 90-minute symposium at AAAS in February2007, in which five presenters from different COSEEs shared informationon how scientists can become involved in education and outreach, “InterdisciplinaryScience Reaches Out: The COSEE Model.”• Co-PIs Domske and Martz organized an Educators House Call in August2007 with eight educators and four scientists from New York and Pennsylvania.In House Calls, teachers share their expertise on site at research facilitiesand interact with scientists about the kinds of assistance education needs.http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/20070830 • The International Association for Great Lakes Research [IAGLR] conferencein May 2007 was the site of a 3-hour symposium organized by COSEE as ourfirst School for Scientists. Eight outreach and education specialistspresented ideas and examples of how to communicate science to the publicand to students, engage underrepresented groups, develop plans for BroaderImpacts, understand pedagogy and Standards, and prepare for a school visit.Excellent feedback will be used to structure future programs for thisgroup. All presentations are available as PowerPoint and video at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/COS

• IAGLR was also the site of 4 other presentations from COSEE leaders,providing program information in a shorter format for those unable toparticipate in the symposium. COSEE Great Lakes events were a focus ofsessions about the College of Exploration workshop and the Lake SuperiorExploration Workshop. Our baseline research among scientists was presented,and we joined with GLEAMS to highlight the reconstruction of that educators’network.

To date we have engaged 118 scientists in teacher enhancement programsof Task 1 and all now receive the quarterly newsletter mailings. We haveseen the development of some specific collaboration efforts, and somescientists have offered to establish communication networks for educatorsamong their colleagues. We need to develop evaluation tools for assessingbest practices for fostering these interactions and measuring their impacton the professions. We also need to reach out to scientists representingthe diversity of the field. Nearly all of the 2006 science collaboratorswere Caucasian, though we had one Native American presenter in the on-lineworkshop. In 2007 one scientist was from India.

Finally, we developed a specific internet page for our web site to addressscientists’ needs and point them to education and outreach resources throughoutthe COSEE network and beyond.


The College of Exploration partnered with COSEE Great Lakes to presentour first on-line workshop, described under Task 1. In order to make thistool more interactive in future offerings, we are considering ways tohave teachers and classes upload simple data related to the science topics,so that data can be compared across the geographic range of the audience.

COSEE Great Lakes uses its web site as the primary means of communicationwith the broader audience of educators and scientists in our 8-state region.Within the project staff, our original webmaster left his MN Sea Grantposition in February 2007, and we worked with a skilled undergraduatestudent in Duluth through 6 months of transition. The new webmaster, alsoshared with MN Sea Grant, joined us in August 2007. The internet activitiesdescribed and/or disseminated at http://coseegreatlakes.net in Year 2


28 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

included• Preparation of pages for scientists http://coseegreatlakes.net/events/scientists/

• Development and dissemination of the first 4 issues of a quarterly newsletter,in collaboration with GLEAMS http://coseegreatlakes.net/newsletter/email/nl4.html

• News briefs related to program activities and personnel, updating visitorsregularly to demonstrate dynamic project: http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/

• Announcements of program events, including application forms http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/

• Notice of available COSEE curriculum http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/20070402

• Update of contact information for staff http://coseegreatlakes.net/contact/

When we learned that it was possible to post our Center announcementson the national web site, we posted a notice of curriculum availabilityon the front page of http://www.cosee.net.


The Greatest of the Great Lakes curriculum compilation of 41 exemplaryactivities on CD-ROM was produced in Year 2 and distributed to teachersand scientists in workshops throughout the region. Copies are availablethrough IL-IN Sea Grant, and samples were used as survey incentives forscientists at the IAGLR School for Scientists as well. Topic areas ofthe activities match those in our longer workshops: hydrology, geology,biology, weather and climate, special environments and special issues.All activities are matched with the National Science Education Standards,Ocean Literacy Principles, Earth Systems Understandings, and the scienceeducation standards for our eight states.

Year 2 also engaged staff and partners in marine education in the searchfor exemplary marine education curriculum, the future “Salt” componentof a “Fresh and Salt” collection. We elected to limit this component totwo exemplary activities for each of the seven Ocean Literacy principles,and are attempting to match our freshwater topics within that frameworkas well.


For this task we made available COSEE support for 11 student programspresented by partners in lake science education. Each state advertisedthe opportunity to apply for grant funds, with emphasis on service toNative Americans and other underserved groups of young people. The groupsserved included:

State Recipient Program ParticipantsIL-IN Great Lakes Research & Educ CtrIndiana Dunes National Lakeshore GL research—then and now 30 inner cityminority high school students

Alliance for the Great LakesChicago Adopt a Beach 3 schools IN & IL, underserved

Indiana Dunes Environmental Learning Center Wetlands investigation 3007th gr Gary IN MI Seaborg CenterNorthern Michigan University Lake Superior student summit 32 Native Americanhigh schoolersNY


29 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Niagara Aquarium FoundationNiagara Falls, NY Life in the seas and lakes Tribal Head Start program,223

Reinstein Nature Preserve, Inc.

Depew, NY Aquatic science investigations 200 inner city [buses]Great Lakes Student Summit

Buffalo, NY Student research 25 low incomeOH Great Lakes Science CenterCleveland, OH GL Gallery, water quality Inner city student admissionsPA Tom Ridge Environmental CenterRegional Science Consortium Great Lakes sciences Erie City, Gr 7-8, allstudents (100)WI S/V Denis SullivanDiscovery World Ltd.Milwaukee, WI Water quality, shipboard science 225 Gr 6-8 inner city


We are very pleased with our Teacher Exchange with COSEE Southeast. TeacherDan Jax went to a leadership workshop in North Carolina, and Kathy Bosiakcame to the Lake Huron Exploration Workshop in Alpena, MI. Both teachershave plans to implement their learning in their home schools. Jax willpresent an Ocean Appreciation Day for Columbus, OH, Metroparks, and willdemonstrate his teacher-made ROV for students and the public in a localriver.

Other collaborative efforts involve working with the newly funded COSEECalifornia. Two faculty members from the University of Michigan participatedin training for teaching the college course on Communicating Ocean Science,and that course will be pilot tested in the 2007-8 academic year. Alsowith COSEE CA we will initiate efforts on developing a Great Lakes basedOcean Literacy Framework.

With COSEE Florida, we organized and presented a 90-minute symposium forAAAS on “Interdisciplinary Science Reaches Out: The COSEE Model.”

With other COSEEs, the Great Lakes Center participated in• Production of a special issue of Current, The Journal of Marine Education,contributing a Great Lakes one-pager and leadership of the article onOcean Observing Systems.• Development of Goal 4 for the COSEE Blueprint• Selection of an interim leadership team for the Network• Four Council meetings requiring multiple travel days• Development and actions of the Governance Working Group that has suggestedmajor changes in operations and communication for the Network.• Using concept maps for science coordination in the Lake Huron Explorationworkshop, assisted by COSEE OS. • Newsletter forwarding to regional constituents as appropriate, implementedmainly with COSEE New England. Several GL teachers signed up for the NEnewsletter in response.

FOR ALL YEAR 2 TASKS: Evaluation efforts and results are presented inthe section on Findings.------------------------------------------

YEAR 1 ARCHIVE. MATERIALS BEYOND THIS POINT WERE REPORTED IN SEPTEMBER


30 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

2006.

Task 1 activities in Year 1 report. Project activities that involve eventsare announced for participants at our internet site: http://coseegreatlakes.net/events/,and objectives and logistics are found there. For Teacher Enhancementwe have conducted one Lake Exploration Workshop on Lake Superior, andone Shipboard and Shoreline Science Workshop aboard the R/V Lake Guardianon Lake Erie. Both were weeklong workshops, headquartered with an informaleducation partner, having a total teacher involvement of 31 in the targetgrade range and three informal educators. Interacting with these educatorswere 14 research scientists. Workshop descriptions are at the COSEE ActivitiesDatabase, accessible by a search on Great Lakes. We have attached theexport file of those entries. A third major workshop is in progress atthis writing. Using a category of event we call “Marine Immersion,” COSEEGreat Lakes provides support for Great Lakes teachers to be involved inpartner events in marine and lake environments. With this support, 17teachers have attended such events, and 6 are currently at a TropicalMarine Ecology workshop in Honduras, led by Co-PI Helen Domske in collaborationwith the Erie2 BOCES in New York.

We have also conducted four shorter “Teachable Moment” workshops in whicheducators spend a day or more with scientists on a special topic. Ourtopics to date have been fish contaminants, dune ecology, the Huron fishery,and the Erie Canal as a corridor for invasive species. These shorter workshopsinvolved over 50 educators and eight scientists in all, as well as numerouspartner organizations. Most of the Teachable Moments are also in the ActivitiesDatabase and are in the attached export file.

To meet Objective 4, curriculum materials were used in all workshops tointroduce teachers to the range of Great Lakes science available in classroomformats, and in some workshops a curriculum project was also requiredto assess participants’ vision for using the workshop science. Teachingmaterials and unit plans developed in these ways are available for reviewfrom Project Director Fortner.

To meet Objective 6 in the teacher enhancement program, we intentionallytargeted recruitment efforts in inner cities and tribal regions. For theSuperior Exploration workshop an expert in Indian archaeology led a fieldexcursion to certain site, and two teachers of primarily native studentswere among the participants. Other demographics are described in the activitiesdatabase.

Research and evaluation. Both the participant educators and the scientistsin the longer workshops were contacted two weeks in advance and askedto complete a survey on collaboration and professional beliefs about scienceand education. The survey was the same as one used regionally [see Task2 Research] but in this case it will serve as a pre-post measure of workshopeffectiveness in achieving our collaboration goals. Other workshop evaluations included participant construction of teachingmaterials, program plans, and questionnaires for their own classes aboutGreat Lakes science. Their use of the workshop science demonstrated thelevel at which they understand and plan to use the experience. We alsoconducted surveys about sources of workshop information, relative valueof workshop events and topics, and intentions to use materials and information.These functional surveys will guide the development of workshops in Years2-5.

For Task 2, Research Scientist Interactions were a focus in all the teacherenhancement programs. Aboard the Guardian, scientists lived among theteachers and were available throughout the week’s cruise to assist themin learning science. In Superior Exploration, scientists assisted with


31 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

planning, spent entire days with the educators, and have agreed to beon call for follow up interaction for the next year.

COSEE Great Lakes “Educator House Calls” are specifically designed asopportunities for small groups of teachers and scientists to interact,learn from one another and develop innovative approaches to enhancingeducational outreach to promote science literacy. The first event washeld August 16, 2006 at the NOAA Lake Michigan Field Station, Muskegon,MI. Five educators met one-on-one with five scientists, as well as meetingwith others more casually, learning from their field programs but alsoconversing with them throughout the day about what teachers need to provideeffective science for their students.

Five COSEE Great Lakes staff attended the conference of the InternationalAssociation for Great Lakes Research and invited scientist participantsto next year’s “School for Scientists” to be held at that meeting.

Research. Also in the May IAGLR meeting we conducted the researcher componentof a survey that serves as the baseline for a study on collaboration perceptionsamong teachers and researchers. The parallel forms of the survey are postedon the COSEE Blackboard and attached as pdf files. We surveyed over 90scientists and 200 teachers in grades 4-10 in the eight states of ourregion. Items covered their feelings about each others’ professional cultures,availability of collaborative opportunities, and the amount of interactioneach respondent had had with members of the other profession. Analysisof results is in progress.

Task 3, Informal settings for Great Lakes/Ocean science education. Wehave not yet done our public seminar series or College of Explorationinternet course, but the coseegreatlakes.net internet site was selectedby national COSEE webkeepers as the model for standardizing the national“look” for all Centers in the program. http://coseegreatlakes.net wason-line within two weeks of funding, and continues to serve as our Center’smeans of advertising opportunities, disseminating curricula, and announcingaffiliated staff news.

Our Lake Guardian cruise began and ended at the Great Lakes Science Centerin Cleveland, and the Lake Superior Exploration Workshop was held at theGreat Lakes Aquarium in Duluth. We have excellent ongoing relationshipswith our informal education partners. All Teachable Moments to date havebeen hosted by different partners. The Shedd Aquarium in Chicago was ahost site for the CoOL Conference on Ocean Literacy in June, involvingGreat Lakes educators and informal partners in the national discussionof ocean literacy.

Media attention to COSEE Great Lakes events has been gratifying, andis considered part of our informal education. Media reports are postedon a wiki at our internet site. The Sea Grant programs have featured COSEEGreat Lakes in their newsletters, which are widely read in lake communitiesand distributed nationally. Some teachers who were in our workshops talkedto local media upon their return and were featured in newspaper articlestelling about the program. Details are found later in this annual report.

Task 4, Curriculum, is on target for Year 1, with about 25 teachers inthe eight states reviewing the Greatest of the Great Lakes collectionof activities and matching them with national and state standards in science,the Ocean Literacy framework, Earth Systems Understandings, and EnvironmentalEducation standards of excellence. We expect to deliver the annotatedset to Year 1 participants and our Advisory Board in October, then beginbuilding a parallel set of ocean activities.

Task 5, Student Connections, was not implemented fully in our first summerbecause the funds to cover this portion of the budget did not arrive untilJuly. We are seeking ways to deploy the student support in start-of-schoolactivities among our collaborators and partners. The Great Lakes Student


32 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Summit did receive late COSEE support. For the remaining project yearswe will be able to offer considerable regional assistance to lower-incomeschools and those with high proportions of underserved/underrepresentedstudents, to encourage greater participation of those groups and broadergeographic representation.

Task 6, Interface with other COSEEs, has been initiated in several ways:• Janice McDonnel from COSEE Mid-Atlantic, serves on our advisory boardand consults with us on applications of Ocean Observing Systems in theclassroom. From this we are gathering ideas for implementation of GLOSin our curriculum for future years.• A teacher exchange scholarship program with COSEE Southeast broughtMichigan teacher Ron Ferenczi to the Southeast’s 2006 Coastal Ocean ObservingWorkshop, and North Carolina teacher Jane Crosby to the Lake SuperiorExploration. • Director Fortner worked with Southeast Director Lundie Spence on Goal4 of the COSEE Blueprint.• Representatives of COSEE Great Lakes participated in o Oceans 2006 and NMEA conferences and Council meetings, o May meetings in DC on sustainability and collaborationo Ocean Literacy on-line discussions and NMEA meeting

Findings:

Year 4. Our teacher professional development program does not have thecapacity to serve all the worthy educators who apply. In 2009 we had 121applicants for 45 slots in the week-long workshops. Since each year'sprogram is different in its environment and focus, it is frustrating tonot be able to use what we learn each year in each setting. There is certainlyplenty of market for continuing this high quality PD opportunity in futureyears if COSEE is re-funded.

Our new evaluator has become an integral part of our professional developmentprogram for educators. Dr. Walters is an 'embedded' evaluator in severalworkshops per year and an online evaluator of the College of Explorationworkshop and smaller efforts [Teachable Moments]. Having him residentin the programs keeps educators on task for learning, not just participating.While this kind of position is relatively expensive in terms of traveland personnel time, it is proving to be extremely valuable in documentingworkshops' direct impacts on the educators and secondary outcomes in classrooms.

Year 3. Evaluation is a critical component of project success, both inachieving that success and documenting it. We have had the services ofMs. Elaine Andrews, Director of the UW Extension Environmental ResourcesCenter, for the first year’s efforts. Her complete reports have been submittedto the COSEE national blackboard, and highlights are summarized here.In Year 2 and beyond, we are focusing greater energy on contributionsour program might make to the literature of marine and Great Lakes scienceeducation. Research-based evaluation is being led by Dr. Howard Waltersof Ashland University [OH].

A revision to the overall conceptualization of the external evaluationhas proven helpful, i.e. the external evaluator and associated budgetarysupport are now committed to a stronger presence onsite at programs forobservation and direct formative feedback. The collection of preliminaryinformation from participants and follow-up with them at regular intervalsis yielding useful results for the remaining program years.


33 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Online Workshop: The Great Lakes ROCK!Post-workshop follow-up evaluation is underway, with an electronic surveyalready delivered to each of the individuals who participated in the workshopat a point approximately 6 months following participation. Participationranged from full engagement, i.e. regular, daily reading and interactionthrough posting of questions and comments, to downloading materials andclassroom activities, to passive reading on a selective basis. Nevertheless,there is evidence from login data that a proportion of these individualswere engaged positively with the workshop experience, with many continuingto login to the workshop URL sites and recommended web pages.

Preliminary conclusions regarding participant impact can be drawn fromthe 185 individuals who have currently completed the follow-up survey.- 87% indicated they heard about the workshop from listserves and electronicweb page sources of information. This response is highly similar to responsesfrom participants at other, comparison workshops reviewed by the externalevaluator and implemented by other agencies. - Approximately 24% (overlapping response data) had a prior knowledgeof the COSEE Great Lakes programs from the earlier online workshop andwere returning participants—supporting a conclusion that the online approachdoes recruit a largely new population of participants.- 54% of the 185 respondents were 7th through 12th grade school teachers,with 9% teaching lower grades. 22% of the respondents were informal educators.- 81% of respondents indicated the content knowledge of the presenterswas Excellent. The remaining 19% rated presenter content knowledge Good,with no ratings below that.- With respect to understanding of education and curriculum, a smallernumber, 56% of respondents, rated the presenters Excellent, with 41% ratingpresenters as Good. Comparisons to a survey of the scientists who presentedat the online workshop match these perceptions of participants, i.e. scientistsrated their own knowledge of curriculum and education issues lower thantheir own understanding of their science content.- A large proportion of the formal educators who responded (63% of 185,or approximately 115 individuals) provided specific content examples ofwhere, when, and how they have already implemented or plan to implementCOSEE workshop content into their classes.- 84% of respondents have recommended COSEE GL programs to colleaguesfollowing participation in the online workshop, but only 53% of respondentsindicated an awareness of other activities offered by the COSEE GL Project,indicating a gap in overall communication of broader program activitiesduring the online workshop—but a very high perceived quality of COSEEGL by the participants. This gap suggests a point of improved communicationsand recruitment for subsequent COSEE GL programs with participants.

Lake Exploration WorkshopsThere are five sets of data systematically collected for each of the LakeExploration workshops: 1) pre-workshop surveys; 2) post-workshop surveys completed at the end of the workshop while stillonsite; 3) follow-up participant surveys for scientists and classroom teachersimplemented at 6-, 12- and 18-month increments (the 18-month point theoreticallycaptures infusion plans for up to 3 academic years for classroom teachers);

4) journal narrative recorded by participants in journals/activity logsduring the workshop experience; and 5) Concept maps developed individually or in small groups daily duringthe workshop to monitor increases in science content knowledge and understandingover the workshop week.

From the participant lists of the first two Lake Exploration workshops


34 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

(Superior and Huron) a group of 15 classroom teachers responded to a follow-uprequest for information from the external evaluator (15 out of 35 possibleor 43%). This response rate for a workshop series that dates back twoyears is considered highly responsive and acceptable. All (100%) of therespondents indicate that they are actively using COSEE GL content thatthey acquired at the workshop in classroom instruction. While some samplingbias must exist (these are the individuals who responded to the survey),this response pattern is important and suggests a strong, positive impactof the Lake Exploration workshops. This support is augmented becausethe respondents have also provided specific, concrete examples of whereand in what contexts they have infused this content into their classroomteaching [See Attachment].

The ability of a classroom teacher to infuse current and accurate scienceinformation in lessons with students is highly dependent upon that teacher’sscience content knowledge. Studies in progress using data from the week-longworkshops data, in the form of individual and group created lists of scienceconcepts and propositions, and individual and group created concept maps,support a conclusion that individual classroom teachers have increasedtheir content knowledge of science in COSEE GL programs. Further, thesedata visualize the emergence of a hierarchical network (Hough et al.,2007; and Novak and Gowin, 1984) of science content related to the GreatLakes that is substantially more complex and deeper at the end of programparticipation than at the beginning of program participation for teachers.First, there is an evolving complexity in the use of vocabulary terminology. Second, there is an evolving complexity in the levels and number of linkagesidentified to connect the core phenomena, i.e. there are more connectionsdrawn as the week progresses, and there are more interconnections drawnas the week progresses.

Teachable MomentsFollow-up data for a sample of 5 short workshops indicate that the programhad positive impact in changing content knowledge and teaching behaviorof participants, and the positive evaluations were also a gauge for theeffective planning and implementation of the program. Substantive responsesfrom these programs were obtained for 17 of the 49 classroom teachersfor a response rate of 35%. These teachers were comprised of 4 teachersfrom grades 4-6, 7 teachers from grades 7-8, and 6 teachers from grades9-12. Follow-up response comments (all perception data) were highly favorableto overall program quality and effectiveness, with 15/17 teachers ratingall aspects of the prior programs as Excellent, and 2/17 rating programsGood. None of the responding teachers indicated that they had had anyfurther involvement with a scientist that they may have encountered ormet through their specific Teachable Moment program, however. The evaluatorrecommends looking internally at COSEE Great Lakes communications mechanismsand the intentionality with which they are encouraging the follow-up communicationsbetween teachers and scientists. It was clear to the evaluator throughparticipation in the Exploration Workshops that they were encouraged toestablish communications with scientists, but it isn’t clear that participantsare taking advantage of this programming element. It is clear from respondents’ comments [Attachment] that the science contentacquired through program participation has been carried back to individualteacher’s schools and infused in instruction for students. The contenthas also been shared with colleagues, thereby enhancing the possibilityof systemic impact within these schools. An additional observation fromthe responses is that there continues to be approximately half of theresponses (9/17 or 53%) who indicate they are not necessarily aware ofother programmatic opportunities through the COSEE GL project. It isrecommended that the management team discuss communications issues further.

Scientist impacts


35 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Based on the work of Kim and Fortner (2008) to measure the perspectivesof scientists on education, a follow-up survey was constructed to disseminateto scientists who have participated in some programmatic aspect of theCOSEE GL project. Eight scientists have contributed to the follow-updata through survey response. The survey items solicited feedback onbasic familiarity with a selection of concepts and ideas that are typicallyassociated with science education presently. The following delineationof the key concepts matches the concept with the percentage of 8 respondentswho express no familiarity with the item:• Classroom management—75% NO familiarity• Hands-on activities—all were familiar with this concept• National Science Education Standards—75% NO familiarity• Constructivist learning theory—100% NO familiarity• Inquiry based learning—75% HEARD OF but are not sureAdditional items pertained to the relationship of the scientists’ preparationto engage in broader impact types of educational or outreach activities. All 8/8 indicated that they were equipped with “enough knowledge in teaching”even though none 8/8 had taken a course in education during their preparatorypath. All of the respondents, 8/8 agreed or strongly agreed that theyworked in collaborative groups and that they had had experiences in theiracademic preparation in cooperative groups. On average, 75% of respondents,6/8, indicated they had “very personal” teacher-student relationshipsin their college experience, and that they had made numerous presentationsabout their research to K-12 students, and had hosted field trips forK-12 students. Only 50% of the respondents indicated that they had involvedteachers in their research. All of the respondents, 8/8, indicated theyhad provided data or content for use on a website by non-scientists, but75% of respondents indicated they had NOT worked with educators on curriculumdevelopment. None of the respondents, 8/8, had experience communicatingwith teachers for pedagogical knowledge related to teaching.

It is important to continue to collect these response data from scientiststo create an appropriate dataset for comparison of the COSEE GL impactedscientists with the baseline data on scientists’ perspectives on educationcompiled by Fortner and Chankook. The follow-up survey data reportedhere were obtained in late spring and early summer 2008, prior to theimplementation of the Lake Exploration and Lake Guardian workshops thisyear. The scientists who were involved in implementing those programs(approximately 15 individuals) will be surveyed this fall to collect additionaldata for this further analysis. By winter 2008/09, a sufficient samplesize should be available to allow statistical comparisons to the initialbaseline data.

Impact on Underserved/Underrepresented GroupsIn October 2007, the Advisory Committee for COSEE GL met in Ann Arbor,Michigan, to receive update reports from the COSEE GL team. One discussionpoint concerned the impact on minority populations by the COSEE GL project. This discussion seemed driven by a lack of data for participation inthe project by minority students, teachers, and/or scientists. Ultimately,it was determined that existing data were perhaps negatively skewed.

The evaluator continues to work with COSEE GL team members to compilean accurate depiction of program data, but at the least, in the 2008 LakeMichigan Exploration workshop there were scientists and other presenterswho were also from minority population groups (1 African American, 1 Latina,and 1 Native American) who made significant contributions to the program. Separately but somewhat related, there were numerous female scientistsinvolved in the presentations and lab activities of the teachers at thisworkshop. The most extensive field experience for the week, on a researchvessel out of the Great Lakes Water Institute at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, was primarily led by a Latina scientist. The number of female


36 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

presenters exceeded male presenters during this workshop.

These data, along with the prior observations with respect to the O’LAKERminority student involvement, suggest that the COSEE GL project is havingsome discernable impact on underserved populations in the region and providingopportunities for minority professionals and scientists including NativeAmericans in the region. Greater effort should be expended in organizingthe communications structure within COSEE GL to couple the internal andexternal datasets and record-keeping as they relate to both minority impactand scientist impact.

-----------------------2006 FindingsThe evaluation program was based on logic models prepared for our majorevent types. We tracked events, demographics and instructional modes,and consulted with our external Advisory Committee, with these primaryresults and needs.1) Demographic outcomes. Though there were 356 educators and 118 scientistsinvolved directly in 2006, we do not have complete demographics on participantsin shorter events. We need to improve our collection of demographic detailsin future years. Scientist ethnicity was Caucasian in the longer events,except for one Native American. For educators, some events had over 20%ethnic diversity, and many more educators reported that their studentaudiences included 40% or more who were members of minority groups. Whilewe had two tribal teachers in one extended workshop, two HeadStart classesfrom a tribal school in one student event, and several high schoolersfrom another tribal school in a different event, we need to consider strategiesfor expanding project capacity to engage more minorities and educatorswith tribal affiliation.2) Improving criterion based evaluation. Though we asked many questionsof all our participants, we did not make all the kinds of inquiries thatwill move the project forward in terms of COSEE goals and program responsibilities.First, most of our logic models do not specifically address ocean literacygoals, yet we need to be working toward those. Second, we neglected toask participants what their goals for participation were! Asking educatorsto assess their goals in advance of events, and achievements of thosegoals after it, encourages reflection and helps educators articulate theirneeds to the staff. Finally, we asked participants what skills they hadacquired during our programs. The few responses returned indicated wewould benefit by cueing the educators as to the skills being used in specificcomponents of the workshops and encouraging an internal locus of controlby involving them more deliberately.3) Teacher enhancement success. Overall the participants indicated theirenthusiasm for the workshop experiences, and the details of evaluatingthem probably don’t have to be collected continually. There are some issuesthat staff will deal with:a. Intensity of programs. Educators indicated that information overloadprecludes time for reflection and information processing. b. Scientists as experts. We took only small steps toward accomplishingthe goal of having scientists engage in conversation about their workbefore or instead of lecturing, so we still need to deal with the perceptionthat the teachers are present to learn and the scientist came to teach.Collaborative opportunities are not stressed sufficiently or demonstratedclearly.c. Content of programs. Educators rated most presenters very highly, butindicated that management issues, while they are interesting, currentlyhave no curriculum links and therefore appear less relevant.4) Scientists’ feedback and follow-up. Because scientists involved inteacher enhancement programs were generally invited, we neglected to askthem some important questions about their own professional goals for the


37 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

events, and to attend to their opportunity to learn about educators. We also did not spend adequate time arranging mechanisms for scientistsand teachers to remain in contact. We do know from Dr. Kim’s collaborationresearch what kinds of collaboration the scientists of the region areengaged in, and what prevents further collaboration [see Baseline Surveybelow]. 5) Internet presence. http://coseegreatlakes.net is our primary contactpoint to advertise our programs and services. Since its IPO in February2006, there have been over 50,000 visitors to the site. In 2007, the siteis drawing nearly 4000 visitors per month, about half unique. We do nothave a feedback or evaluation link with the site, a needed addition.6) Curriculum products. These have been well received, but we currentlydo not have a way to evaluate their use or get feedback for improvement.7) Public science literacy. We have a goal to make research findings aboutthe Great Lakes available to the public to encourage science literacyand appreciation of water resources. Given the array of project componentswe have been funded to implement, we need to consider if this is a viablegoal. The public seminar programs in our Sea Grant programs may be fillingthis need already. Alternatively, perhaps we should consider asking educatorparticipants to develop a community activity as a workshop product.

2006 Impacts based on quantitative surveys, all workshopsEven at this early stage in the program, we can document changes in ourparticipants that can be attributed to their involvement.1) Participants were able to list many resources they could use from ourworkshops, and also things they need. Their enthusiasm for Great Lakesteaching and learning has motivated them to identify ways to accomplishtheir goals.2) At the end of workshops, educators are not hesitant to indicate howthey can integrate new information and experiences into their programs,even if they were unsure of program utility at the start.3) Many science professionals across eight states were willing to participatein work with educators. 4) Educators expressed value of the listserv used by the Director to forwardopportunities and information.

2007 We did not innovate our workshop-based evaluation method in this yearbecause of the late transition to the new evaluation leader. Outcomesand impacts of each type of COSEE Great Lakes activity are being examinedfor how they relate to research in science and environmental education,and evaluation techniques will be developed with contributions to thatresearch base in mind. Our evaluation of the December 2006 on-line workshopis a step in that direction [see outcomes below].

In 2007 we also learned more about the scientists we wish to engage ineducation. Two primary methods are described here.

Baseline Research on Scientist-Educator CollaborationsDr. Chankook Kim based his dissertation at The Ohio State University on“Perceptions of Collaboration: A Comparison of Educators and Scientistsfor COSEE Great Lakes.” His research will guide the project’s attemptsto facilitate collaboration between scientists and educators. The studieswere aimed to characterize and compare collaboration perceptions betweenmarine/aquatic scientists and primary/secondary teachers in the GreatLakes Region. Comparing responses from scientists and educators, theirperceptions of educational collaboration were investigated. Regressionanalyses identified predictor variables accounting for a majority of thevariance of scientists’ and educators’ experience in collaboration: I. On the basis of the data analyses for teachers there are six predictorvariables which account for a majority of the variance in explaining their


38 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

experience in collaboration and serve as the most parsimonious predictorset: 1) attitudes towards collaboration with scientists, 2) professionalpreparation I - science competencies, 3) teaching experience in years,4) contemporary views of science and science education, 5) perceived levelof barriers and 6) institutional support. The six predictors have a combinedpredictive ability to explain 36% of the variance in experience of teachers

II. The regression analyses also show that four predictor variables accountfor a majority of the variance in explaining scientists’ experience incollaboration with teachers (a combined predictive ability of 50%): 1)familiarity with terms in education, 2) attitudes towards collaboration,3) research experience in years, and 4) professional preparation II -collaborative cultures

The dissertation resulting from this effort, PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATION:A COMPARISON OF EDUCATORS AND SCIENTISTS FOR COSEE GREAT LAKES, has beenannounced to the COSEE community and will be available for their use.

Three manuscripts are in print or forthcoming for various audiences [detailedcitations in Products section of report]:• Educators’ data, published in American Secondary Education, 2007• Scientists’ data, in revision for the Journal of Great Lakes Research• Comparative data, in preparation for the Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching.

School for Scientists: Findings from a training symposiumIn a 3-hour symposium at the annual meeting of the International Associationfor Great Lakes Research, we presented eight sessions to assist scientistsin EPO. The attendance at sessions ranged from 20 to over 40 participants,with greatest participation in “Simplifying Research Language,” “Turningyour research into a spell-binding story,” and “Including education andoutreach in your proposal.” More scientists came to the outreach-basedsessions than to those focused on classroom education, but 27% of evaluationrespondents came to all eight sessions.

After the symposium, 61% reported that their awareness of informationand resources for assistance with EPO increased substantially, and another20% reported moderate awareness increase. Nearly half said their awarenessof how to design or deliver an educational experience was increased substantially,and another 35% reported moderate gains.

Impacts on the participants were impressive. They claimed that AS A RESULTOF THE SCHOOL FOR SCIENTISTS, they • Will develop an education or outreach initiative (10/26)• Will check the COSEE Great Lakes Web site for resources (17/26)• learned a specific technique that I can use (17/26)• have a better idea of how to work with underserved groups (11/26)• want to learn more about how to work with an educator (8/26)• would like to receive more information on COSEE Great Lakes programsfor scientists (11/26)

Research-Based Analysis of Audience Participation, On-Line WorkshopThe richness of responses to the weeklong on-line workshop in late 2006encouraged analysis of the process and product beyond statistical reporting.A research paper was presented at an international conference on Computer-BasedLearning in Science, held in Crete in 2007. Further analyses are in progressto document the content of participant communication as the workshop facilitatedthe development of a far-reaching community of learners.

COSEE Great Lakes staff and participants alike were astonished by theability of the program to allow in-depth discussions, to expand the limits


39 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

of what people thought the Internet could do, and to bring to everyonea much richer array of materials, contacts and experiences than a traditionalworkshop could accomplish. We found that, as Charles and Griffin (2007)predicted, we hated to relinquish our face-to-face interactions with theaudience, but “realize that our loss is not their loss.” Our initial impressionswere based on the ability of the medium to attract more educators thana traditional workshop could, with no expense to participants and no travelcosts for staff. Expanded evaluation efforts will document concerns ofboth staff and participants, and will provide data to assist with theplanning of future online inservice events.

2007 Follow-up of 2006 Summer Participants All participants of the Lake Erie Shipboard workshop and the Lake SuperiorExploration workshop were surveyed in May-June 2007, and selected participantswere also interviewed. Elaine Andrews found these results from the surveys:

Impacts: Science resource professionals (presenters)N = 16 (100%)o Level that science professionals found participation in the workshopuseful to their work: 53% rated the workshop as high or very high in itsusefulnesso Involvement since the workshop:40% said that their involvement with K-12 educators had increased sincethe workshop and provided exampleso Awareness of materials for teaching:40% said that the workshop increased their awareness of materials forteaching about Great Lakes or ocean sciences in K-12 situationso Awareness of opportunities for partnering with educators: 47% said that the workshop increased their awareness of opportunitiesfor partnering with K-12 educators in teaching about Great Lakes or oceanscienceso Educators contacted you:40% reported that educators had contacted them since the workshop andprovided examples

For science professionals who already have experience with educators,the current workshop structure did not improve the likelihood that theywould increase their involvement with educators (even though some did)or the likelihood that they would increase their awareness of educationmaterials or opportunities. For those who indicated that the workshopwas useful to their work, however, the workshop experience was positivelycorrelated with increased involvement and awareness.

Survey narrative comments provide ideas for possible barriers to involvementas well as suggestions for how to move forward. The workshop presentersseemed to understand that educators face challenges for involving scienceprofessionals in their work from bureaucratic requirements and lack ofresources. They suggest that educators may additionally have problemsinvolving a science professional because they don’t know who to ask orwhat questions to ask. The difficulties that educators might have in finding“the right person” who could serve as a true partner were also cited.The “right person” was described as someone who understood that theirwork is important to educators, who had time, and who could speak at astudent level.

Science professionals, in turn, felt limited about the possibility offorming future partnerships due to not knowing whom to contact, not knowinghow to communicate with educators, and not having enough time or energy.Some additional concerns are that their time would not be compensatedor that educators would copy their materials without attribution. Finally,presenters suggested that there is a lack of opportunities for connecting


40 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

with educators and complemented the COSEE initiative for providing anopportunity.

Impacts: EducatorsN = 29 (88% responding)o Instructor confidence in teaching about the Great Lakes since the workshop

93% said their confidence had increased moderately or substantiallyo Coverage of Great Lakes topics since the workshop 90% said their coverage had increased and provided exampleso Awareness of available sources of information for teaching about theGreat Lakes since the workshop 97% said their awareness had increased moderately or substantiallyo Providing opportunities for student inquiry since the workshop 41% said that they had increased the number of opportunities for studentsand provided exampleso Engaging science professionals since the workshop31% said they had increased the level of involvement of science professionalsin their education program, and provided examples

The workshop design and implementation had a large impact on increasingknowledge and awareness of resources, especially for those who had littleexperience with Great Lakes topics prior to the workshop. But the workshopsrequired educator receptiveness (at least some prior exposure) to takebest advantage of ocean science content.

Prior involvement of science professionals in the science program is positivelycorrelated with increases in post workshop involvement. This indicatesthat educator previous experience with science professionals somehow enhancedtheir receptivity to increasing the frequency of that connection. It mayalso indicate that workshop design could be strengthened to more directlyshow educators how to engage science professionals in their work.

Clearly, the Great Lakes workshop had a strongly positive impact on participants.A positive experience is likely to have a positive impact on educatormotivation and to increase individual locus of control related to GreatLakes and ocean science topics. Additional feedback from educator surveys,in the Andrews report on the COSEE Blackboard, indicates the strengthof educators’ memory of the experience – even almost a year after theevent. One important aspect to note is the number of comments referringto when the educator will be able to implement what they learned. SixLake Superior participants from 2006 mentioned that although the workshopwas excellent and met their needs, that for one reason or another theywould not be able to implement what they learned until this coming schoolyear (2007-08).

Summary and Recommendations from Elaine Andrews1) Evaluation formatWorkshop-specific evaluations should be given to scientist instructorsas well as educators, in order to gauge their feelings about the workshop.2) Importance of personal communication in promoting the workshopThe fact that such a high percent (71%) learned about the workshop throughpersonal communication reinforces the importance of this method of encouragingeducators to participate.3) MarketingWith this group the “science and culture” of the targeted lake was themost common purpose of attending, indicating that opportunities to learnabout “science and culture” could be a strong marketing message. Groupingtogether aquatic research on the water and learning about human impactsprovides information about related marketing messages that would interestthis group.


41 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

4) Meeting educator goals and usefulness of resourcesa. These educators focused on the opportunity to interact with colleagues,an introduction to curriculum materials, and an introduction to relevantwebsites as priority outcomes for them. This result enforces plannerdecisions to focus on these opportunities.b. The main reason participants cited for not integrating new skills/resourcesin the classroom is lack of funding and equipment. It could be helpfulin future workshops to discuss funding resources and grant-writing skills,or post this type of information on the COSEE GL website as a tool foreducators. c. Educators could use help making contacts with scientists in their locale.

Potential opportunitiesAccording to Elaine Andrews’ assessment the Lake Exploration and R/V Guardianworkshops provide an outstanding education design that presents an opportunityto take project ideals one step further. The NSF funded COSEE Great Lakesevents serve as models of effective engagement techniques, and to thatextent, can provide additional examples of strategies to increase thequality and effectiveness of Great Lakes education.

State Great Lakes education coordinators can consider how to:• Increase the frequency of the science professional/educator relationshipafter the workshop. State coordinators can provide more explicit experiencesfor both audiences to practice ideas for how to take advantage of partnershipopportunities. In particular, coordinators can devise a support systemfor educators and presenters who have less partnership experience priorto the workshop. Both educators and science professionals wanted morehelp in identifying who to talk with and what questions to ask.

• Expand email communication opportunities between science professionalsand educators. This method was frequently cited as a doable partneringactivity.

• Focus on the science presenter’s engagement during the workshop, including:their actual involvement with educators, their awareness of educationmaterials, and their awareness of opportunities for involvement with educatorsduring the workshop. Science professionals’ perceptions of usefulnessof the workshop were positively correlated with each of these elements.

• Find a way to build motivation and leadership among science professionalswho are already involved in working with educators.

• Present Great Lakes content as “taking the first step to getting interestedin the Great Lakes.” Present content understanding that the participantmay know nothing about the Great Lakes, rather than implying that theirknowledge is somehow weak. Focus more attention on enjoyment and lessattention on problems, at least at first.

• Provide more attention to ocean science education as part of the GreatLakes experience, especially for those educators who have very littleprior experience with ocean science topics.

• Provide educators with practice in using science research proceduresin the classroom and in providing opportunities for student inquiry.

Training and Development:

Year 4 additions


42 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Our model workshop for Lake Exploration continues to serve us as an excellentcollaboration between an informal education institution with lake accessand research science facilities in the region of a given lake [Erie in2009]. Bonds are strengthened as educators reach back to these facilitiesfor support, and as scientists continue to relate to teacher needs.

For our Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop we innovated the twocruises this year with the proposed model of having educators work withscientists to develop and test hypotheses about the relationship betweenphysical and biological parameters in the lakes. Scientists who providedthe expertise and technologies of the USEPA-GLNPO research vessel, theR/V Peter Wise Lake Guardian, were enthusiastic about the results of thisinnovation.

Our efforts at recruiting teachers who are themselves representativesof under-represented groups improved somewhat this year with the participationof four teachers from Detroit urban schools in the Lake Huron Shipboardand Shoreline Science workshop. We hope that others may see the videoon YouTube and be encouraged to participate in Year 5 workshops.

Again this year we found that biology faculty environmental specialistsin state agencies of the region participated in our online workshop tolearn more about the ecology of the region. The science lectures presentedwere substantive and were followed by active discussions between scientists,participant educators, resource managers, and other scientists! Topicswere- Plankton and Benthos of the Great Lakes- Great Lakes Food Web- Great Lakes Fisheries- Invasive Species and the Great Lakes- Environmental Health and Human Interactions

Twenty-six participants in Great Lakes Alive signed up to do the workshopfor credit through the University of Minnesota Duluth. Twenty-three ofthose participants followed through with active participation. They averaged26 separate visits to the online workshop, spending an average of 9.3hours of time online with the materials. (It should be noted that somematerials could be downloaded and reviewed off-line.) In total 139 peopleparticipated in the workshop. Participants ranged from people who self-identifiedas teachers and faculty to 4-H leaders and other non-formal educationalleaders.

Scientist training was accomplished through 3 Educator House Calls, inwhich teachers met with scientists to share information about school environmentsand assist the scientists in working effectively with classrooms. Moreinformation on specific events is in Task 2 Activities.

-----------------------------------------Year 3 additions

COSEE Great Lakes has now produced a model workshop for Lake Explorationand offered its third program in Chicago for Lake Michigan Exploration.The workshop is offered in an informal education institution with lakeaccess and provides six full days of immersion in science content withrelated field experiences and curriculum applications. Science topicsin each workshop are geology and coastal processes, hydrology, life inthe lake, climate and weather, special issues of the lake, and specialenvironments of the lake. Embedded in the content are applications oftechnology: Great Lakes/ocean observing systems, remotely operated orautonomous underwater vehicles, satellite and remote sensing information.


43 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

For our Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshop we use the expertiseand technologies of the USEPA-GLNPO research vessel, the R/V Peter WiseLake Guardian, newly equipped with classroom space and satellite videoconferencing.With an unfortunate overlap of schedules between the 2008 Lake Ontariocruise and the Lake Erie Realtime Aquatic Data workshop, we establishedthe Lower Lakes Link by videoconference, allowing educators at both workshopsto discuss their data collection and results of research.

We were delighted this year to find that natural resources and environmentalspecialists in state agencies of the region participated in our onlineworkshop to learn more about the geology of the region. The science lecturespresented were substantive and were followed by active discussions betweenscientists, participant educators, resource managers, and other scientists!Topics were- Fundamental geologic principles- Geology of the Great Lakes- Fossils as indicators of marine environment in the GL- Current geologic processes and erosion- Technology for study of the Great Lakes geosphere- Human connections with Great Lakes geology

Scientist training was accomplished through two Educator House Calls,in which teachers met with scientists to share information about schoolenvironments and assist the scientists in working effectively with classrooms.Both House Calls were done for NSF GK-12 programs. In the Ohio example,we found that with the departure of the education Co-PI, the scientistgraduate students had received no introduction to classrooms at all beforecoming in to work with teachers and students. Their frustration and feelingsthat they were used by the teachers without much lasting effect has fueledthe project staff’s resolve to change the coming year’s approach to classroominvolvement. COSEE is gratified to have had this impact on another NSFprogram. In the Minnesota example, science GRAs were being trained inadvance of classroom entry, the expected and more defensible approachto GK-12 involvement. It will be interesting to compare outcomes of thetwo projects in regard to collaboration between scientists and educators.

----------------------Year 2 additions. Two week-long Lake Exploration workshops [Superior at the Duluth Aquariumand Huron at the Alpena National Marine Sanctuary Maritime Heritage Center]have involved scientists and teachers in a lakeshore informal educationsetting since the last report. One or more scientists met with the teachersall day to share information, lead field excursions, or offer lab activitiesdemonstrating the fundamentals of their topic: geology, climate, biology,hydrology, special issues and special environments. Before scientistsarrived, educators read science papers describing the research to be presented,and they asked questions to guide the presentation of the science. Scientiststoo were given papers about science education, education concepts, standards,and such, with the goal that scientists should become learners too.

Also in Year 2, we conducted a 3-hour School for Scientists at the annualmeeting of the International Association for Great Lakes Research [IAGLR].Experts in outreach, writing, grantsmanship, and classroom education gavepresentations to a group of over 100 different scientists during the period.

Another form of scientist training was an Educator House Call held collaborativelybetween PA and NY staff. A small group of educators brought information


44 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

about classrooms, instructional standards, teaching conditions, and thelike, to scientists in research institutions. As expert to expert, theyspent a productive day sharing across the two cultures.-----------------------------Year 1 report:The project has contributed to the research skills of informal educatorsand teachers of grades 4-10 as the participants of the Shipboard and ShorelineScience [R/V Lake Guardian] workshop and two Tropical Marine Ecology workshopslearned side by side with scientists how to collect and report data onbenthic invertebrates, water quality measurements, physical characteristicsof a water column, plankton species/abundance, GPS locations, fish species/abundanceand tropical invertebrate species/abundance. In reporting out what theyplanned to do with workshop information, nearly all of the participantsindicated they planned to introduce their students to local aquatic researchexperiences or data or measurement skills. Teachers aboard the Guardianalso assembled a list of guidelines for scientists to help them work moreeffectively with classrooms and teachers.

Scientists aboard the R/V Guardian experienced the immediate effects oftheir teaching styles on participants. Those scientists who saw that theywere not communicating effectively produced print materials as supplements,modified their vocabulary level, and/or adopted questioning techniquesthat helped them learn what teachers needed. Scientists aboard the Guardiandeveloped a collective list of guidelines for teachers that would helpthe scientists work more effectively with classrooms.

Outreach Activities:

Year 4 Outreach [Previous years follow this section]

Our internet site at http://coseegreatlakes.net is our primary outreachmechanism for continuing information about the program [see Activities,Task 3]. The site has received about 136,000 hits over its pages sinceit opened in February 2006, and 62,000 of those are unique hits [differentpeople coming in and searching at least one page]. In fact, 41,000 ofthe hits came within the October 2008 – September 2009 period. The weblogis the most popular page, and people are primarily finding it throughGoogle Image searches. The home page is the second most popular page. Search terms that most often result in finding coseegreatlakes.net areCOSEE Great Lakes, Paddle to the Sea, Great Lakes, and COSEE.

Four issues of the quarterly newsletter Sweetwater Seascape, written byDirector Fortner with input from CO-PIS and Advisor Hinchey-Malloy, wereproduced and distributed electronically to a growing [over 1000] listof COSEE participants and interested individuals. Back issues are foundat http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/

Our annual Advisory Committee meeting was held in Duluth in early October2009 to update our 12 regional and national advisors on program developmentsand evaluation. This meeting assures contact with 12 influential organizationsin the region. During the meeting we reviewed our 4 years of progressand identified tasks still remaining to be done, along with how advisorscan contribute to this process. Advisors are updated on COSEE happeningsand opportunities at least monthly from Director Fortner’s office.

COSEE Great Lakes has a subcontract with COSEE California to adapt theOcean Literacy Principles and Concepts for use in the Great Lakes region.A significant portion of the Advisory meeting and staff time were devotedto first steps in this process, led by Advisor Lyndsey Manzo who has been


45 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

instrumental in developing Lake Erie Literacy Principles with the LakeErie Partnership over the past year.

The Great Lakes Sea Grant Network provides outlets for outreach throughstate program newsletters. In this project year the COSEE efforts werefeatured as follows:

HELM articles [IL-IN Sea Grant] - Fall 2008, p. 4-5, Lake Michigan becomes the classroom for COSEE teacherworkshop.

Seiche [Minnesota Sea Grant - Isle Royale in the Classroom, April 2009, page 4 - COSEE Great Lakes Brings Great Opportunities. April 2009, page 4 http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newslett

Minnesota SG press releases

o 15 Educators Embark on a Superior Science Expedition, July 1, 2009o Shipboard Science for Teachers: Application Deadline, April 22, 2009o Ahoy! Educational Opportunity for Teachers, March 4, 2009

TWINE LINE articles [Ohio Sea Grant]- High tech education workshops at Stone Lab, Nov 2008- Treasures of Lakes Erie, Oct 2009 [written by LEEW participant]-News releases, Ohio Sea Grant: - 7/21/09: Workshop Teaches Educators about Lake Erie Science http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/news/?ar

- 2/17/09: Teachers Invited to Apply for Lake Erie Exploration Workshop

Keystone Shorelines [PA Sea Grant], Jan 2009. Pennsylvania Sea Grant 'TallFall' Offered Science, History LessonsPA press release: Teacher Workshop (Why Did the Water Turn Green? ) January19th

Aquatic Sciences Chronicle [Wisconsin Sea Grant]Winter 2009, Exploration Workshop Focuses on Lake Superior in 2009

Coast Watch [NY Sea Grant]- Focazio, Paul C. Feb 2009, p. 6-7. We’re all residents of the GL. [LakeGuardian 2008]

Great Lakes SPLASH [New York Sea Grant Extension e-news]- Educators and the Erie Canal 2008- Blogs Share Story of Teacher Courses on the Great Lakes and Ocean - 10/28/08: Teachers Using Experiences from COSEE GL Tour - Feb 2009: Great Lakes ALIVE! On-line Workshop February 16-27- Aug 2009: August Teachers' Workshop: Exploring the Link between InvasiveSpecies & the Erie Canal - Aug 2009: October 14 Lake Erie Teachers' WorkshopGreat Lakes Teachers’ Workshop April 29 Lake Erie Exploration Workshop July 18-24

NOAA, Coastal Services newsletter, Nov/Dec 2008: Using a Blog to ExpandEducation Programming’s Reach in New York [Paul Focazio] http://www.csc.noaa.gov/magazine/2008/06/articl

Minnegram [MN listserve] Educators Embark on a Superior Science Expedition.Sept. 2009, page 4


46 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Erie Times News Newspapers in Education pages:October 7, 2008 Shipping OutJanuary 27, 2009 Bug them, please

Erie Times News EditorialOctober 13, 2008 Students learn lessons at sea

GLIN-Announce- IISG News: The Great Lakes Are Alive in Online Teacher Workshop, 1/28/09- Great Lakes ALIVE! 2/2/09- Teachers Invited to Apply for Lake Erie Exploration Workshop, 2/4/09- Educators Chart Course for Great Lakes Curricula, 7/10/09.

ISTA: 2/10/09, The Great Lakes Are Alive in Online Teacher WorkshopWisconsin Association for EE: Calendar postings for listserve- Lake Erie Exploration Workshop: http://eeinwisconsin.org/net/calendar/details.aspx?c=1982452&s=8

- Shipboard and Shoreline Science Workshop – R//V Lake Guardian – LakeHuron: http://eeinwisconsin.org/net/calendar/details.aspx?c=1982455&s=80815.0.0.2209College of Exploration 2/15/09, COSEE-GREAT LAKES Online WorkshopBuckeye Boater, March 2009. Lake Erie Exploration Workshop

Presentations

COSEE Great Lakes continued to disseminate program information to potentialparticipants and to interested colleagues through professional conferences.We reached these audiences:

NMEA July 2009, Asilomar [CA] - Domske, Goettel and Kathleen Furlong [COSEE teacher]: Educators andthe Inland Seas: COSEE Great Lakes-Goettel and Domske: Classrooms Releasing Live Species into our Waters:A study on reducing risk of invasive species introductions- Hallesy and Goettel: Student Stewardship: Informing communities aboutproper disposal of unwanted medicine to protect our waters - Lyndsey Manzo [Advisory Committee], From the Ocean to the Lake: Introducingthe Lake Erie Literacy Principles - Lubner: Panel participant for “What’s New with COSEEs: Recently FundedCOSEE Collaboration Projects,” reporting on Collaborative with EducationAquanauts

NSTA April 2009 National Conference- From Sea to Inland Sea: COSEE teachers exchange coastlines for broaderprofessional experience [Fortner & Lundie Spence]- Explorations: COSEE Great Lakes [Munson & Fortner]- Spice up your curriculum with a little Fresh and Salt [Goettel]

IAGLR annual conference, Toledo, May 2009• Goettel: “Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop—Synthesizing Research forClassroom Application”• Goettel: “Community Stewardship through Environmental Education-A ModelProject”• Manzo: Lake Erie Literacy Principles: How PIs Can Incorporate LiteracyPrinciples and Outreach Components to Enhance Research Proposals (withM. Huntley, B. Culler, H. Elmer, C. Riddle, & J. Jentes Banicki)

Goettel: • HASTI conference for Indiana Science Teachers, Indianapolis Convention


47 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Center, February 6, 2009, “Spice up your curriculum with a little Freshand Salt”• Making Connections – Understanding the Differences in Our Culturesand Working Together to Bridge the Gaps, 12/2/08 at Linking Research andEducation: An NPS - Great Lakes Network Workshop [National Park Service]

Domske: Participated in the International Association of Great Lakes Researchersannual conference, including the School for Scientists and gave a talkon the 2008 Lake Guardian course as part of the Outreach and Educationsession. One of the teachers from the Lake Guardian course was invitedto co-present at the National Marine Educators Association national conferencethis summer, which was her first presentation at a national conference.

Lubner: - Display at Wisconsin Association for Environmental Education. Oct 2008- Presentation with teacher Steve Franklin at Wisconsin Society of ScienceTeachers: “Interested in a Science-Based Research Cruise on the GreatLakes?” March 2009- Great Lakes Overview for full staff training program of Inland SeasSchool of Expeditionary Learning, a charter school in Milwaukee, 3 hrprogram

Fortner: “Paddle-to-the-Sea Google Lit Trip,” poster at GeoTools 2009,March 2009, Myrtle Beach SC, Co-presenter with David and Noah Hart

Stewart: Presentations about COSEE Great Lakes - September 10, 2008. Brownstown, MI. Great Lakes Education ProgramNew Teacher Orientation.September 16, 2008. Detroit, MI. Detroit Public Schools Science ConnectionsExpo. - October 18, 2008, Livonia, MI. Metropolitan Detroit Science TeachersAssociation Conference.October 21, 2008, Detroit, MI. Detroit Public Schools Elementary ScienceCoordinators Meeting. - January 12, 2009, Traverse City, MI. Great Lakes Schoolship ConsortiumMeeting. - March 6, 2009, Detroit, MI. Michigan Science Teachers AssociationConference.- March 16 & 18, 2009, Brownstown, MI. Great Lakes Education ProgramNew Teacher Orientation.- March 23, 2009, Detroit, MI. Great Lakes Education Program New TeacherOrientation.- April 4, 2009, Bad Axe, MI. Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment Workshop.- July 8, 2009, Lake Erie, MI. Great Lakes Science for Teachers SummerDiscovery Cruise.- July 15, 2009, Lake St. Clair, MI. Great Lakes Science for TeachersSummer Discovery Cruise. - July 25, 2009, Detroit River, MI. Lake Huron Shipboard and ShorelineScience Workshop.

Manzo (Advisor): Northwest Ohio Symposium on Science, Mathematics andTechnology Teaching, 11/08, Aquatic Life Along the North Coast: ComingSoon to a Classroom Near You

------------------------Year 3 Outreach [Previous years follow this section]

Our internet site at http://coseegreatlakes.net is our primary outreachmechanism for continuing information about the program [see Activities,


48 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Task 3]. The site includes our goals and objectives, staff and advisorlist [ABOUT page], information about our events and registration packages[EVENTS], updates on key staff and program events as well as collaboratorinformation [NEWS page], blogs from our week-long workshops [WEBLOG],curriculum resources and progress on Fresh and Salt [CURRICULUM], andstate-by-state CONTACT information. The site has received about 95,000hits over its pages since it opened in February 2006, and nearly halfof those are unique hits [people coming in and searching at least onepage]. In fact, 43,000 of the hits came within the Autumn 07- Summer 08period. The weblog is the most popular page, and people are primarilyfinding it through Google Image searches. The home page is the secondmost popular page. Search terms that most often result in finding coseegreatlakes.netare COSEE Great Lakes, Paddle to the Sea, Great Lakes, and COSEE blog.

Four issues of the quarterly newsletter Sweetwater Seascape, written byDirector Fortner with input from Co-PI Domske and Advisor Hinchey-Malloy,were produced and distributed electronically to a growing [over 500] listof COSEE participants and interested individuals. Back issues are foundat http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/

Our annual Advisory Committee meeting was held in Ann Arbor in mid-Octoberto update our 13 regional and national advisors on program developmentsand evaluation. This meeting assures contact with 13 influential organizationsin the region. During the meeting we developed and approved a list ofresponsibilities for Advisors and for staff relationship with the AdvisoryCommittee. Advisors are updated on COSEE happenings and opportunitiesat least monthly from Director Fortner’s office.

The Great Lakes Sea Grant Network provides outlets for outreach throughstate program newsletters. In this project year the COSEE efforts werefeatured as follows:

HELM articles [IL-IN Sea Grant] - Explore Lake Michigan at Educator Workshop, Spring 2008, Illinois-IndianaSea Grant Program - Greatest of the Great Lakes—A Medley of Model Lessons, Summer 2007,Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program

TWINE LINE articles [Ohio Sea Grant] - Fortner, Making a splash in Cleveland! Twineline, Spring/Summer 2008,p. 8-9. - Martz, COSEE Teachable Moment at Old Woman Creek, Fall 2007, p. 6 - Greatest of the Great Lakes advertisement, Fall 2007, p. 6

UPWELLINGS articles [Michigan Sea Grant]- Stewart, An Ocean of Information, October 2007, p. 2- Stewart, Lake Huron: Educators Dive In, October 2007, p. 4-5

News Releases from Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program - The Great Lakes Rock in Online Teacher Workshop - January 24, 2008 - Environmental Fair Unveils Student Community Stewardship Projects,April 15, 2008. This service learning program was supported by the Provost’sInitiative on Teaching Advancement andCOSEE Great Lakes. Great Lakes SPLASH [New York Sea Grant Extension e-news]- Educators and the Erie Canal 2008- Blogs Share Story of Teacher Courses on the Great Lakes and Ocean

MSTA E-mail Listserv [Michigan Science Teachers Assn] - Message promoting “The Great Lakes ROCK!” online workshop, January,


49 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

2008 - Message promoting “Lake Michigan Exploration Workshop,” March, 2008 - Message promoting “Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment Workshops,”March, 2008

Newsletters and web sites of the GL Sea Grant Network also featured announcementsand promotions for workshops. Workshop promotion was particularly strongin IL-IN, with listserves in 6 teacher organizations running our materialsfor the Lake Michigan Education Workshop and the online workshop.

Other COSEEs and organizations that worked with us provided coverage aswell: - COSEE Coastal Trends eNewsletter, July 2008. Ocean Observing SystemsWorkshop held on Lake Erie - COSEE Network News, January 2008, Vol 1, No. 1: Focus on…. COSEE GreatLakes - South Euclid – Lyundhurst City Schools featured an O’LAKERS story atwww.sel.k12.oh.us entitled Memorial Junior High Students Embark on a Voyageof Discovery. - The COSEE GL Lake Guardian course provided more than 8 newspaper andtelevision stories related to the program.

Presentations


NAAEE November 2007, Virginia Beach - Fortner, Munson & Tuddenham, COSEE Great Lakes Online Workshop: InserviceEducation on the Desktop - Kim and Fortner, Perceptions of Collaboration: A Comparison of Educatorsand Scientists for COSEE Great Lakes [Research Symposium] - Kim and Fortner, Collaborating with scientists for Great Lakes andocean education.

NMEA July 2008, Savannah - Fortner, Tuddenham & Munson: Virtual workshop: The Great Lakes ROCK! - Bosiak, Kathy, [Southest Exchange teacher] From Sea to Inland Sea - Lyndsey Manzo [Advisory Committee], Aquatic life along the North Coast:Coming soon to a classroom near you! - Goettel & Hallesy: Community Stewardship through Environmental Education:A Model Project

NSTA October 2007, Detroit Regional Conference - Ocean science: Do it on the Great Lakes! [Hinchey-Malloy, Lusch, Sturtevant]

- Great Lakes, Great Science: Bringing Great Lakes Science into YourScience/Technology Classroom [Manzo, Holtschlag] - Teaching with Real-Time Ocean and Great Lakes Data (Koehler)

Goettel: June 27, 2008, Indiana Environmental Ed. Symposium, IndianaState Museum, Indianapolis, “What’s new in environmental education fromCOSEE Great Lakes and Sea Grant?”

Domske: A presentation on COSEE GL was made to 100 participants at theSea Grant Great Lakes network meeting held in Chicago, in October 2007.

Martz: August 19, 2008…Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies… discussion


50 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

of COSEE O’LAKERS opportunities for teachers from multiple local schooldistricts

Sturtevant, Great Lakes Water Issues, 'Solutions Summit' (service learningworkshop) at Central Michigan University on February 6

Fortner: presentations about COSEE Great Lakes structure and functionat - Cleveland Teachable Moment, May 15, 2008- Educators House Call in Columbus, January 28, 2008- Realtime Aquatic Data for Science Teaching, July 15, 2008

Stewart: Presentations about COSEE Great Lakes opportunities - September 5, 2007. Brownstown, MI. Great Lakes Education ProgramNew Teacher Orientation. - September 25, 2007. Detroit, MI. Detroit Public Schools Science ConnectionExpo. - February 8, 2008. Ann Arbor, MI. Midwest NOSB COSEE Teachable MomentWorkshop - April 12 and 19, 2008. Bad Axe and Alpena, MI. Lake Huron FisheryTeachable Moment Workshops - May 8, 2008. Detroit, MI. Detroit Public Schools Science CoordinatorsMeeting. - August 20, 2008. Detroit, MI. MSU College of Agriculture and NaturalResources new staff orientation.

In our Online Workshop, The Great Lakes ROCK!, Fortner as the social scientistpresented Great Lakes Geology: The Human Connection. 2/8/08. Archivedat http://www.coexploration.org/coseegreatlakes/

SECO, 2/8/08. Manzo: Dive into the Greatest of the Great Lakes [3-hourworkshop using GOGL]

Illinois Science Teachers Association Conference, November 10, 2007, Peoria,IL, Goettel & Hallesy, “Immerse Your Students in the Great Lakes”

HASTI Indiana Science Teacher Conference, Indianapolis Convention Center,February 7, 2008, Goettel & Hallesy, “Engaging Students through InnovativeService Learning”

Environmental Education Association of Illinois Conference, May 16, 2008,Oregon, IL, Goettel & Hallesy, “Community Stewardship through EnvironmentalEducation—A Model Project”

----------------------Year 2 report:This year we combined forces with GLEAMS, the Great Lakes Educators ofAquatic and Marine Science, to reach more educators with the science ofthe Great Lakes. One of the COSEE Advisors is now President of GLEAMSand serves COSEE as a resident scientist.

Four issues of a quarterly newsletter, Sweetwater Seascape, were producedand distributed to a mailing list of about 300 individuals. Back issuesare found at http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/


Environmental Educators [NAAEE conference in St Paul, MN, Oct 2006]


51 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

- Preconference Short Course on Teaching about the Great Lakes Environment[1.5 days], multiple staff involved.- Presentation on the COSEE Great Lakes program opportunities [Sturtevant& Fortner]- Poster session on R/V Lake Guardian workshop [Fortner & Domske]- Research Symposium presentation on preliminary data from the Baselinestudy of educators [Kim & Fortner].

National Ocean Sciences Bowl facilitators [Training conference in DC,Sturtevant]

Great Lakes Research Scientists [IAGLR conference in State College PA,May-June 2007]. Science liaison Sturtevant worked with conference staffto organize the sessions, and posted videos on the GLERL web site.- What’s So Great About the Great Lakes? An Online Great Lakes EducationWorkshop Through the College of Exploration [Fortner]- Limno-Links: Why Great Lakes scientists should engage in- educational outreach. [Sturtevant & Fortner]- Great Lakes Scientists’ Perceptions on K-12 Education- Collaboration. [Kim & Fortner]- Pedagogy and Standards 101 [Fortner & Stewart] - Poster session-- COSEE Great Lakes: Connecting Scientists, Educatorsand Students: Pennsylvania Efforts to Date [Martz]

Marine Educators [NMEA conference in Portland, ME, July 2007]- Playing in the mud, COSEE style [Manzo and Makayenko, participants in06 Guardian workshop]- Dive in and Enjoy COSEE’s Greatest of the Great Lakes! [Hallesy, Goettel,Fortner]

Michigan Science Teachers MSTA: COSEE's exploration workshops [Stewart and Michigan team] COSEE Great Lakes and Shipboard Science [Lindow and Stewart]MESTA: COSEE Great Lakes teacher enhancement [Stewart and Damery]Metropolitan Detroit Science Teachers Assoc: COSEE Overview [Stewart]

Regional Science Teachers [NSTA Area Conference in Detroit, October 2007]- Great Lakes, Great Science: Bringing Great Lakes Science into Your Science/TechnologyClassroom [Manzo and Holtschlag, participants in 06 Guardian]- Ocean science: Do it on the Great Lakes! [Fortner, Sturtevant, HincheyMalloy]- GLEAMS, Great Lakes Educators of Aquatic and Marine Science: Out ofDry Dock and Coming Soon to a Classroom Near You…the Voyage Resumes! [HincheyMalloy, Hallesy, Lubner] - GLOS [Stewart]

Participants in two Great Lakes seminar series were able to learn aboutCOSEE Great Lakes curriculum materials related to seminar topics throughhandouts specific to the topics of- Great Lakes geology [Indiana Department of Natural Resources]- Climate and shipping on the Great Lakes [Ask a Scientist series, MNSea Grant]

The Great Lakes Restoration Conference [regional management conferencein Chicago]. Robin Goettel represented COSEE Great Lakes on a panel discussingneeds and directions for education.

Media coverage of COSEE Great Lakes is not systematically tracked, andwe realize this is desirable. In the meantime we are aware of the followingmedia articles between September 1, 2006 and September 15, 2007:- Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program newsletter, The Helm,


52 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

o COSEE Catches On [Fall 2006: p.8]o Educators get immersed in Great Lakes issues, Fall 2006: p.4o Publications: Greatest of the Great Lakes, Summer 2007: p.7- Michigan Sea Grant supports a COSEE Great Lakes web page: http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/cosee/ Autumn 06 entry: What’s so great about the Great Lakes?- Pennsylvania Sea Grant, Keystone Newso December 2006: COSEE Great Lakes: Connecting Educators and Scientiststhroughout the Great Lakes, p.1o January 5, 2007: Teachable Moments – Focus on Waves and Beaches, p.1- New York Sea Grant newsletter, Coastlines:o Smooth sailing for Great Lakes education, 35(3)10-11, Fall 06- Ohio Sea Grant newsletter, TwineLineo If you put it on the web, they will come! 29(1):6 [Winter 07]- Michigan Sea Grant newsletter, Upwellingso Lake Huron Exploration Workshop, June 2007, Article 5o COSEE workshop immerses educators in GL science, Sept 06, Article 1o Michigan educators join online workshop, Dec 06.- The Alpena News, Alpena, MI: Workshop focuses on Great Lakes relationshipwith land, August 15, 2007- WBKB-TV Channel 11, Alpena, MI: Evening news lead story on Lake HuronExploration Workshop, August 16, 2007- Minnesota Sea Grant newsletter, The Seicheo Teachers ship out, October 06

Journal Publications:Kim, Chankook; Fortner, Rosanne W., "Educators' views of collaboration with scientists", AmericanSecondary Education, vol. 35(3), (2007), p. 29., " " PublishedKim, Chankook; Fortner, Rosanne W., "Great Lakes Scientists' Perspectives on K-12 EducationCollaboration.", Journal of Great Lakes Research, vol. 34, (2008), p. ., " " PublishedParsons, C. ;Stewart, Stephen; Fortner, Rosanne W.; Lichtenwalner, Sage, "COSEE and OceanObserving Systems: The Wave of the Future", Current: The Journal of Marine Education, vol. 23(1),(2007), p. 26., " " PublishedFortner, Rosanne W., "COSEE Great Lakes", Current: The Journal of Marine Education, vol. 23(1),(2007), p. 37., " " PublishedFortner, R.W.; Swan, Marcia L.; Munson, Bruce, "The Great Lakes: Fourth Coast of the U.S.", Connect,vol. 20(5), (2007), p. 7., " " PublishedWalters, Howard D, "Concept Mapping: Mixed Methods Data for Measuring Teacher Learning in anNSF-Funded Professional Development Program (COSEE Great Lakes)", National Forum of TeacherEducation Journal (http://www.nationalforum.com/Journals/National%20Forum%20of%20Teacher%20Education%20Journal/National%20Forum%20of%20Teacher%20Education%20Journal/TOCte8e3.htm), vol. 19, (2009), p.3., " " PublishedHarrison, J. A., J. H. Cohen, E. Hinchey, A. Moerke, and P. von Dassow, "Developing andimplementing an effective public outreach program", Eos Trans. AGU, 90(38), 333ƒ??334, vol. 90,(2009), p. 333., " " PublishedFortner, Rosanne W. & Deborah B. Jenkins, "Simulated sampling of estuary plankton", ScienceActivities, vol. 46 (1), (2009), p. 26., " " PublishedFortner, Rosanne W., "Ocean Literacy (Editorial)", Science Activities, vol. 46(3), (2009), p. 3., " "Published


53 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Fortner, Rosanne W. and Victor J. Mayer, "How is coastal temperature influence by the Great Lakes andocean?", Science Activities, vol. 46(3), (2009), p. 20., " " Published

Book(s) of other one-time publications(s):Fortner, Rosanne W.; Munson, Bruce; Tuddenham, Peter, "Regional science education workshop onlinethrough the College of Exploration" , bibl. Proceedings of an International Conference on ComputerBased Learning in Science, Heraklion, Crete, pp. 159-171, (2007). Book Publishedof Collection: Constantinou, C.P. et al, "Contemporary Perspectives on New Technologies in Scienceand Education"Kim, Chankook; Fortner, Rosanne W., "Perceptions of cultural differences and collaboration amongenvironmental scientists and educators" , bibl. Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference of NAAEE.,(2006). Proceedings on CD-ROM PublishedSturtevant, RA and A Marshall, "Educator House Call: On-line Data for Educators Needs Assessment -Summary Report." , bibl. NOAA TM-149. http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/techrept.html, (2009).Technical report Publishedof Collection: , "NOAA TM"Rosanne W. Fortner [Ed.], "Science Activities, Special Issue on Ocean Literacy" , bibl. ScienceActivities 46(3). Taylor & Francis, Publishers, (2009). Journal special issue Publishedof Collection: Rosanne W. Fortner, ""

Other Specific Products:

Audio or video products

"A Tribute to the Great Lakes," Audio CD containing 18 songs for GreatLakes learning, contributed by regional artists.

The CD is given to participants in COSEE Great Lakes workshops.

Data or databases

Summary of data from R/V Lake Guardian cruise June 18-24, 2006. Relatesto benthic ecology and water quality samples collected in the Shipboardand Shoreline Science workshop for Lake Erie.

Currently the data are meaningful primarily to the teachers and researcherswho collected the samples.

Software (or netware)

A Weblog for participant reporting of events in progress is now availableon the project web site. The blogs are based on the WordPress platform,with a custom PHP templating system developed by our webkeeper for theoverall COSEE Great Lakes site. With this in place, the webkeeper customizedWordPress to smoothly integrate into the templating system.

Our webkeeper will discuss development with interested parties. Characteristicsare apparent when the netware is in use on line.

Data or databases


54 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Greatest of the Great Lakes -- A Medley of Model Lessons. 41 Curriculumactivities on CD-ROM, matched to National Science Education Standards,Ocean Literacy Principles, and science standards for all 8 Great Lakesstates.

Advertised for sale at http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/20070402Distributed for free at teacher enhancement workshops presented by COSEEGreat Lakes.

Newsletter

Sweetwater Seascape. Quarterly on-line publication for Great Lakes educatorsand scientists interested in Great Lakes education. Published collaborativelywith the newly revitalized GLEAMS [Great Lakes Educators of Aquatic andMarine Science]. Provides calendar of events, news from the marine andGreat Lakes environments, opportunities, and resources for teaching. Linksto partner programs and special events.

First two issues distributed as pdf files and mailed as hard copy; allsubsequent issues disseminated as internet links while the newsletteris housed at http://coseegreatlakes.net. When new issues are available,they are announced through a listserv of over 500 addresses. The listincludes other COSEEs, participants in our Center programs, and individualswho have indicated interest in being on a mailing list. By appearing onour web site, the newsletter is a searchable item for visitors.


On-line video of April, 2008 Lake Huron Fishery Teachable Moment Workshoppresentations produced and made available on Michigan Sea Grant website(http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/fisheries/fishery-workshop.html)

Considering developing a web page to link to this and other presentations.


All presentations from the 2007 IAGLR School for Scientists were assembledby GLERL and are available on their web site

COSEE accesses the presentations through a link on coseegreatlakes.net/events/scientists/


Great Lakes Ecology course for use in High Schools. Draft version preparedin 2009 for testing in schools.

When finalized it will be distributed on free DVDs or downloadable fromthe Internet.

Electronic Newsletter

Sweetwater Seascape. Quarterly on-line publication for Great Lakes educatorsand scientists interested in Great Lakes education. Published collaborativelywith the newly revitalized GLEAMS [Great Lakes Educators of Aquatic andMarine Science]. Provides calendar of events, news from the marine andGreat Lakes environments, opportunities, and resources for teaching. Linksto partner programs and special events. Twelve issues published to date.

Disseminated as internet link while the newsletter is housed at http://coseegreatlakes.net.When new issues are available, they are announced through a listserv of


55 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

over 1000 addresses. The list includes other COSEEs, participants in ourCenter programs, and individuals who have indicated interest in beingon a mailing list. By appearing on our web site, the newsletter is a searchableitem for visitors.

Internet Dissemination:

http://coseegreatlakes.net, http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/COSEE/SchoolforScientists.html

The coseegreatlakes.net site is used for public awareness of programsand opportunities, daily input from workshops, and recruitment of participantsfor events. Links to other significant education and science programsin the region. The site was selected as the Great Lakes Information Network'sSite of the Month for May 2006.

Important functions of the website are to- provide assistance to scientists in education and outreach- archive our newsletters and share current happenings- document activities through weblogs for our major eventsannounce and recruit for program events- publish regional news in education

As reported in Outreach, the site has received about 136,000 hits overits pages since it opened in February 2006, and 62,000 of those are uniquehits [people coming in and searching at least one page]. In fact, mostof the hits came within the March - August period surrounding workshopapplications and blogs. The weblog is the most popular page, and peopleare primarily finding it through Google Image searches. The home pageis the second most popular page. Search terms that most often resultin finding coseegreatlakes.net are COSEE Great Lakes, Paddle to the Sea,Great Lakes, and COSEE blog.

The GLERL website is an archive of the presentations and video for the2007 School for Scientists. We are seeking a permanent server home forthis valuable information as well as the presentations from the 2009 meeting.On this site, acknowledgement is primarily for Sea Grant, since that NOAAprogram funds half of our COSEE.

Contributions:

Contributions within Discipline:

We consider our primary discipline to be Science Education / EnvironmentalEducation.

YEAR 4: A conceptual model for use of concept mapping for monitoring increasedcomplexity of cognitive knowledge of Great Lakes science was developedand implemented daily at the Lake Exploration workshops in Alpena, Michigan(2007) and in Chicago, Illinois (2008) and on the Lake Guardian workshopcruise (2008). This assessment model has been implemented at anotherCOSEE GL collaborative project at the Great Lakes Water Institute at theUniversity of Wisconsin in 2009 to add a third instructional model forcomparison group analyses. In the meantime a manuscript has been acceptedfor the National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 19(3), Fall 2009.

Our evaluator has also worked with the College of Exploration to drafta report on 'Learning pathway construction in online professional development.'


56 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

Both papers document the outcomes and contributions of COSEE Great Lakes'professional development programs.

Our technical report on an effective approach to the Educators House Callwill provide guidance for others wishing to use this method of reachingscientists with information they need to be effective in education.

Follow-up Tracking and Participant Database. It is clear that continuedtracking of past participants of the COSEE GL projects, scientists andteachers alike, is critically important to establishing the longer-termimpact of the project. Our database of nearly 1200 individuals standsready for incorporation into the â€œbinsâ€ for Network data to be usedin the NSF Decadal Review of COSEE.

YEAR 3:Evaluation Model. A broad literature review is underway in conjunctionwith the COSEE GL external evaluation as another approach to refine theimpact and learning of this project. A reference bibliography is attachedto this report (Attachment: Appendix A). Findings and methodologies froma select set of these studies have informed the analysis and methodologicalprocedures of this COSEE GL evaluation approach, and it is anticipatedthat a manuscript will be ready for submission for review/publicationin late fall 2008. This methodological improvement for program evaluationis yielding important evidence to support a conclusion that the teachereducation models used in the NSF COSEE system are resulting in enhancedscience knowledge among classroom teachers, and this methodological advancementin evaluation is construed as an accomplishment of the COSEE GL project.

Follow-up Tracking and Participant Database. Our external evaluator hasworked with the project team and other subcontractors to create a single,master database to include complete identifying data and contact informationfor all participants, partners, and sponsors of the COSEE GL project. This database has already proved useful in implementing follow-up surveysand in maintaining communications links with prior related personnel/participants. Additionally, this master database will be useful in designing follow-onresearch studies as they are conceptualized currently and in the future. One example of this is a newly approved doctoral dissertation study onthe migration of science content from constructivist teacher educationworkshops into classroom instruction and homework design by science teachers. This dissertation study uses classroom teachers randomly selected fromthe approximately 1,000 educators now in the COSEE GL database. The abilityto generate random sub-samples out of a large database is, again, a contributionor enhanced capability emerging from the COSEE GL effort.

-----------------Year 2Our staff of Sea Grant educators is skilled in organizing and presentingoutreach programs for state-based aquatic science, but COSEE has givenus an unprecedented opportunity to work across state boundaries and beinvolved in the greater responsibilities of science and environmentaleducation nationally. As we near the end of Year 2, we feel that we havecontributed to science and environmental education in two primary ways:1) establishing a research-based recommendation for increasing collaborationof teachers and scientists, and 2) development of a model for reachinga very large audience for science/environmental education through on-linelearning.

1. We have supported research to look at the issues involved in educator/scientistcollaborations, from the perspective of each of those groups. A dissertationand three manuscripts for publication have been developed on this topic,


57 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

as described in Products. We have identified the variables that are mostclosely associated with collaboration in each group and will look foropportunities to influence some of those variables. Six predictor variablesaccount for a majority of the variance in explaining their experiencein collaboration and serve as the most parsimonious predictor set: 1)attitudes towards collaboration with scientists, 2) professional preparation- science competencies, 3) teaching experience in years, 4) contemporaryviews of science and science education, 5) perceived level of barriersand 6) institutional support. The six predictors have a combined predictiveability to explain 36% of the variance in experience of teachers. Fourpredictor variables account for a majority of the variance in explainingscientistsï¿½ experience in collaboration with teachers (a combined predictiveability of 50%): 1) familiarity with terms in education, 2) attitudestowards collaboration, 3) research experience in years, and 4) professionalpreparation II - collaborative cultures.

Details of the research point to the notion that collaboration could beincreased if teachers were more confident of their science, and if scientistshad opportunities to observe and participate in modern constructivistmodes of teaching and learning. Given that further consideration mustbe given to increasing educatorsï¿½ science competencies and scientistsï¿½collaborative attributes, we may foster mutual learning among them byallowing teachers to have initiatives/controls in knowledge interactionsin teacher-scientist collaboration.

2. With the College of Exploration we developed a way to take a localface-to-face inservice program and translate that into an on-line workshop.Videos of science presentations and teachers engaged in curriculum activitieswere made into streaming lessons downloadable on demand. Viewers couldsend written messages on line to the scientists and share informationwith their teacher peers, bringing a free inservice program to about 400participants. We have shared our successful method of on-line workshopproduction with international colleagues in Computer Based Learning inScience.

Contributions to Other Disciplines:

Year 4: The COSEE Collaborative at the University of Wisconsin WATER Instituteengaged 8 educators in research on invasive species for their first fundedeffort. We have thus enhanced Great Lakes/ocean science in our region.

The Shipboard and Shoreline Science workshops aboard the USEPA Lake Guardianhave at last reached their research potential, with scientists fully engagedin conducting the research flow of the weeklong workshops. They guideeducators in making hypotheses about relationships among physical andbiological parameters in the lake, collecting and analyzing data, andreporting their science results. Scientists and educators truly work togetherin original research in these experiences.

Finally, COSEE Great Lakes in each year of its program is the only COSEEto take educators to a different marine/coastal environment than the onein which the Center is located. We thus expand the range of ocean sciencesavailable to 15 educators each year.

Year 3:A pair of research scientists associated with COSEE Great Lakes have movedforward with an outreach project and have solicited support from classroomteachers and the external evaluator to refine and enhance this outreach


58 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

project next year. The scientists were successful in getting NSF supportfor a COSEE Collaboration with our Center.

Contributions to Education and Human Resources:

YEAR 4In addition to the human resources served in our regular workshops, aspecial opportunity in Year 4 came through a service learning course developedby one of our Co-PIs. Here are the Service Learning Course IMPACTS (definedby U of Illinois students as part of their Final Portfolio assignment):

Stewardship/Social responsibility- 'I feel as if my social responsibility has grown and I consider myselfextremely grateful to be in a position and to have access to venues whichcan enable me to spread this knowledge further than my own community.'- 'The community stewardship project helped both myself and the studentsto grow. By creating a project, the class got the chance to show off theirskills. They are very excited by the idea that something they create willbe available in the outside world. The young students also enjoyed havingcontrol over something in the learning process--getting to help designand implement a tool to be used by others.'

Enhanced Learning Skills- 'UI students inspired the kids to continue in their education and careabout the world around them. Kids saw UI class leaders as role models.'- 'As part of the kids' learning enrichment the other student teachersand I put on a mock forum discussion where we brainstormed some ideasof what our stewardship project should consist of. Next, we turned thetables to include the kids and Mrs. Grabow's ideas. We did this so thatthe kids could see how a group of people can get together with a bunchof ideas and can come to agreements. We felt that this is an importantconcept that kids lack sometimes. Conflict and resolution is much likethis scenario. This also instills communication and discussion skillsthat they will be able to carry throughout their life. It is importantto let the kids feel that what they have to contribute is important, howeverbig or small.'

Professional Development/Career Preparation/Pursuing a Path in College- A job booster: 'I took this class to build my credibility and resumeas an educator and to give me a skill that will be marketable in findinga job after I graduate.'- 'An administrator at the Campus Middle School pulled me aside and toldme that our work has had a profound effect on her daughter (a studentof ours). For as long as she can remember, her daughter has been fascinatedby animals and ecological studies. [As a result of this class] She nowwants to enroll in NRES at the U of I. It feels really good to know that,at the very least, we have done right by at least one person.'- 'Being in the classroom and watching our children grow and progresshas taught me things that no other course on this University had the potentialto. Outside of the classroom we learned how to function more efficientlyin a group or team setting. We learned each other's skills and playedoff them to create a great atmosphere both in and out of the classroom. These are skills we all will continue to use in the future as most lifesituations are in group settings.'

Personal Growth- 'My experience in this course has taught me much about myself, the fieldI hope to get into, and definitely is one of the best courses I have takenat this university.'


59 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

- 'The weekly reflections encouraged me to think critically about my experience.'

Life Skills- Leadership: 'Developing skills to control the class had added to myability to function as a leader. This allowed me to also take charge inone of the projects I worked on for Engineering Open House, by keeping15-30 volunteers busy throughout the build days. I will also be able totake these skills away with me and apply them to my future in the realworld.'- Teamwork: 'There were many skills that I learned how to use differentlybecause of this course, but the most important was the teamwork. Group-workwas the basis of this course. Everything we did was in our teaching groupand having a good connection and good communication with them really madethis successful.'- Communication: 'This was an essential part of this learning experience.We needed to talk with teachers, students, each other, the faculty, theprint shops, and our community partners. Each had a stake in accomplishingour final goal of spreading the message about aquatic invasive species.I learned that negotiating this many people on the same project can bea handful. It allowed me to hone my communications with others so thatwe would get things done and plan ahead for possible problems.'

--------------------YEAR 3Since Human Resource Development is the basis of our COSEE Great Lakesprogram, much of the detail of activities has been reported in other sections.The entries in Contributions to the Discipline are also Human Resourcedevelopment. The population of educators served in 2008 is still growing.Since our beginning in 2006 we have served over 1100 teachers in COSEEGreat Lakes workshops. Among those in face-to-face programs, includingconference presentations, about 10% were from underrepresented groups,and more than 20% indicated they teach high populations of underserved/underrepresentedor disadvantaged students.To date we have engaged over 350 marine and Great Lakes scientists witheducators, as detailed in Task 2 Activities. In addition, we contributedthese specific training models for scientists:In 2008 we established training programs for scientists and GRAs in NSFGK-12 programs, with two Educator House Calls. In these small face-to-facegatherings, educators work with the researchers and graduate studentsto prescribe appropriate methods, vocabulary, and expectations for workingin classroom settings. Scientists share their research with the educatorsso that the educators can offer effective recommendations.In 2007 we developed and tested a model for bringing training in educationand public outreach to scientists by conducting a School for Scientistsat a professional science research conference. As a result of the initialoffering of the School, scientists reported that the presentations increasedtheir knowledge of information resources on how to relate to educators[61% Substantially increased], and 80% indicated that their awarenessof how to design or deliver science for education increased either moderatelyor substantially. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated they hadplans for a new activity with education.

The ability of a classroom teacher to infuse current and accurate scienceinformation in lessons with students is highly dependent upon that teacherï¿½sscience content knowledge. Studies in progress using data from the week-longworkshops data, in the form of individual and group created lists of scienceconcepts and propositions, and individual and group created concept maps,support a conclusion that individual classroom teachers have increasedtheir content knowledge of science in COSEE GL programs. Further, thesedata visualize the emergence of a hierarchical network (Hough et al.,


60 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

2007; and Novak and Gowin, 1984) of science content related to the GreatLakes that is substantially more complex and deeper at the end of programparticipation than at the beginning of program participation for teachers.First, there is an evolving complexity in the use of vocabulary terminology. Second, there is an evolving complexity in the levels and number of linkagesidentified to connect the core phenomena, i.e. there are more connectionsdrawn as the week progresses, and there are more interconnections drawnas the week progresses.

----------------YEAR 2Since Human Resource Development is the basis of our COSEE Great Lakesprogram, much of the detail of activities has been reported in other sections.The two entries in Contributions to the Discipline are also Human Resourcedevelopment. The population of educators served in 2007 is still growing.In 2006 we served over 500 teachers in COSEE Great Lakes workshops, withan estimated 4000 hours of teacher enhancement experiences. Among thosein face-to-face programs, including conference presentations, about 8%were from underrepresented groups, and 20% indicated they teach high populationsof underserved/underrepresented or disadvantaged students.

To date we have engaged 218 marine and Great Lakes scientists with educators,as detailed in Task 2 Activities. In addition, we contributed this specifictraining model for scientists:We have developed and tested a model for bringing training in educationand public outreach to scientists by conducting a School for Scientistsat a professional science research conference. As a result of the initialoffering of the School, scientists reported that the presentations increasedtheir knowledge of information resources on how to relate to educators[61% Substantially increased], and 80% indicated that their awarenessof how to design or deliver science for education increased either moderatelyor substantially. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated they hadplans for a new activity with education.

------------------------YEAR 1With only 8 months of our year completed, the evaluation efforts havenot been compiled and analyzed to enable us to report our effectivenessin these categories. However, we can address the level of effort we havemade on contributions to human resource development as follows:The project has to date brought about 100 educators into collaborativeinteractions with over 20 scientist/researchers. The educators learnednew aquatic/marine science information and skills, and the researcherslearned about teachersï¿½ needs for their science. Not all scientistswere equally effective in dealing with the audience of educators, andobservations and feedback from these experiences will help us structurefuture collaborations as well as the School for Scientists in Year 2.

Both of our longer workshops and most of the shorter ones to date haveinvolved either representatives of underserved/underrepresented groupsor teachers with classes having high proportions of these groups [AfricanAmerican and Hispanic in the Guardian workshop and Native American inthe Superior Exploration]. We have projects from the black and Hispanicteachers demonstrating their intended use of the science materials andcomfort with the concepts. We have provided scholarships for 17 teachers to attend marine immersionevents, which include workshops conducted by other COSEEs and coursesoffered through partners. A separate scholarship supported a North Carolinateacherï¿½s [COSEE Southeast] travel for participation in the SuperiorExploration Workshop. The project also supported a PhD level graduatestudent for one academic quarter to conduct the baseline research survey


61 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

among scientists and teachers at large.Information from scientists may not be useable by teachers without some

training or curriculum examples to demonstrate how that information appliesin the classroom. While the project did not develop new materials in Year1, we assembled the ï¿½Greatest of the Great Lakesï¿½ Curriculum Medleyand used some component activities in each of the workshops. Both scientistsand teachers were expected to participate, and for the most part scientistsdid involve themselves in the process of learning as younger studentswould. Teachers thus became aware of curriculum materials that have beendeveloped by state-based funding but apply to regional or global aquaticscience. Teachers embraced the materials enthusiastically and indicateda desire to be involved in production of new materials as the projectproceeds.

Contributions to Resources for Science and Technology:

Year 4In addition to our research and special publications, our newsletter archivesrepresent a significant source of information about the marine and GreatLakes environments, current issues, and resources for teaching. All issuesremain online at http://coseegreatlakes.net/news/. Through the EvaluationWorking group COSEE Great Lakes has helped to shape the information thatwill be collected for NSF's decadal review of the national program.

We also produced an online workshop on the biology of the Great Lakes,â€œGreat Lakes ALIVE!â€ The College of Exploration hosted this workshop,and its 5 science presentations with scientist interactions remain onlineas a resource at http://www.coexploration.org/coseegreatlakes.

Year 3In addition to our research publications, we have produced a significantresource in the form of our online workshop on Geology of the Great Lakes.This workshop included 6 research presentations and 16 days of interactionsamong scientists and educators and agency personnel. All presentationsand interaction records remain online in perpetuity at http://www.coexploration.org/coseegreatlakes.

Year 1Leaders and participants of COSEE Great Lakes programs have revitalizedthe regional chapter of the National Marine Educators Association, knownas GLEAMS, the Great Lakes Educators of Aquatic and Marine Science. Thechapter has been inactive for two years as leadersï¿½ responsibilitieschanged and regional funds were unavailable to support travel for interaction.NMEA is pleased to learn of our efforts and the growing number of COSEEparticipants in the region is not only bringing new vitality to GLEAMSbut also providing a means of continuing COSEE-type activities among thosewho have come to know the quality of aquatic/marine science availablein the Great Lakes.

Conference Proceedings:

Special Requirements for Annual Project Report:


62 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

We welcome comments on this system

Categories for which nothing is reported:Contributions Beyond Science and EngineeringConference ProceedingsSpecial Reporting RequirementsAnimal, Human Subjects, Biohazards

Submit ReturnView Activities PDF File

View Findings PDF File


63 of 63 10/27/09 3:03 PM

NATIONAL FORUM OF TEACHER EDUCATION JOURNAL VOLUME 19, NUMBER 3, 2009

1

Concept Mapping: Mixed Methods Data for Measuring Teacher Learning in an NSF-Funded Professional Development Program

(COSEE Great Lakes)

Howard Walters, EdD Associate Professor College of Education

Educational Foundations Ashland University

Ashland, Ohio

ABSTRACT

The literature of teacher continuing education reflects a substantive gap in our understanding of the link between effective instructional strategies in teacher training experiences to enhance science content knowledge, and the subsequent use of that knowledge in those teachers’ classroom practices with K-12 students. In 2006, the National Science Foundation funded the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence: Great Lakes, as a program to link scientists and classroom teachers. One goal of this project was to implement a series of workshops to increase the content knowledge of teachers for select science content. This study applies a mixed methods design to capture and analyze data on teacher learning in these NSF-funded workshops. Concept mapping possesses a methodological advantage over criterion-referenced pre- and post-testing in that it does not require tight alignment between taught content and the measurement instrument. As utilized in this study, the process does produce quantitative findings which are inferable to other learning settings. The article provides a detailed description of the process with example maps to allow replication of the process.

Introduction

Much has been written regarding the reform of American education in theoretical and practical terms. The trends of such reform, past and current, and real, imagined, or proposed impacts are on varied levels. At the very least, we seem currently to be refocusing school reform on the local site and on individual classroom teachers, over against the broader, systemic initiatives of previous federal administrations. As Hollingsworth and Sockett (1994) noted 15 years ago: this refocusing is mostly away from “generalizations about context” toward a greater appreciation of the contexts of schools specifically. As this reform process has occurred—and it is now long-term as a

NATIONAL FORUM OF TEACHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 2____________________________________________________________________________________

derivative of the standards movements in content disciplines and the reinvigorated “national goals” from the previous executive branch—the role of the classroom teacher in the reform process has again centralized.

Three important trends which are moving to the forefront of school reform discussions are emerging in recent literature and merit consideration. First, the role of not-for-profit (NFP) or non-governmental-organizations (NGOs) is shifting in positionality from external to internal with respect to their spheres of influence over and on school systems (Honig, 2009; Rowan, 2002). This discussion is some-what distinct from but includes the emergence of organizations such as Teach For America to positions of national prominence and influence in the school reform movement, particularly as it relates to issues of teacher quality and licensure (Hess & Petrilli, 2009). This discussion includes the increasing role of NGOs in determining specific content for teacher initial licensure and continued licensure through professional development, such as the roles of NSTA and NCTM respectively on science and mathematics standards.

Second, in the post-critical era of educational research where issues of hegemony and marginalization increase in volume, perspectives on the political and professional voices of teachers and students dominate some circles of discussion. The value that is placed on teacher knowledge and experience—or lack of value—and the input and role of teachers in school reform activities is questioned (Cook-Sather, 2009). Kennedy (2005), in a powerful treatment of school reform and the relationship between systemic administrative levels and discrete classroom realities, identifies three clusters of school reform activity: “more important content, more intellectual engagement with that content, and universal access to knowledge” (p.6). She concludes that most of these school reform efforts have failed—including those linked to teacher professional development activities and content knowledge.

Finally, some analysts question the viability of accountability cultures to adequately address, stimulate, and enhance student learning at the classroom level. Firestone (2009) juxtaposes “accountability culture” with “learning culture”—seeing these two as not necessarily related. He identifies organizational breakdown and lack of articulation between central offices or central management (the district) and the changes that are actually made at the classroom level that influence student learning.

These calls to reform—and to “reform the reform effort” are embedded with a number of philosophical beliefs and statements common to calls from earlier decades. The substance of these reform statements seems focused on the movement of content knowledge from laboratories, research centers, and the private sector to the classroom by enhancing the content knowledge and skills of classroom teachers in a way that materially and effectively changes the practice of teaching, and thereby the essence of learning among students. An earlier, important and concise treatment of the reform vision is the report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF, 1996) organized around five recommendations which remain pertinent and critical:

1. Get serious about standards for both students and teachers. 2. Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development. 3. Fix teacher recruitment, and put qualified teachers in every classroom.

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________3

4. Encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill. 5. Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.

Theoretical Background for Teacher Learning

Simultaneous to the development of a reformist literature has been significant expansions of the literature of Continuing Professional Education (CPE) for teachers, (particularly the refinement and disaggregation of theories for CPE design) and the literature of Epistemology and its treatment of knowledge types. These literatures remain largely disassociated, and this gap at the philosophic level contributes to the uncommunicative and unproductive nature of “dialogue” between educational theorists, researchers, and policy-makers on the one-hand, and the practitioners of education on the other. And in turn, this deficiency in communication has birthed both researchers housed awkwardly in practice centers, and shallow, practitioner-lead, research programs.

It is noted that the core of this article to follow is essentially highly practical and methodological. The purpose in the research presented here was to develop, apply, or explore the utility of a specific measurement methodology to support a theoretical learning position espoused in historic literature for teacher learning. Thus, the theoretical literature is accurate and applicable, though in some cases more than a decade old. The methodological approach to measurement is most recent in its development and application.

It is not the purpose of this article to present in philosophical terms the scope and arguments of knowledge literature in teacher education. Select publications in this literature have clearly established, however, the necessity of infusing these ideas in more practical discussions. Fenstermacher (1994) builds a compelling case for more philosophical considerations by describing the inconsistencies of epistemic weight or evidence required to define the parameters of teacher knowledge. What is meant by “a teacher knows” when used by researchers or practitioners differs based on the evidence required to sustain arguments for proof of knowledge attainment. Fenstermacher posits “teacher knowledge/formal” against “teacher knowledge/practical” as, in part, the distinction between preceptive knowledge and knowledge-through-experience—though this summarization is simplistic. He observes that in the United States, “many members of the policy-making community are embracing a view of teacher knowledge and skill that represents a limited epistemological perspective on what teachers should know and be able to do” (p.4). It is at the feet of this policy view where Fenstermacher ensconces initiatives for certification and licensure, and curricular standards and assessments at local, state, and national levels. Continuing, he concluded that as “educational policy is grounded in weak or erroneous assumptions about the nature of knowledge, there is a high likelihood that is will fail to address the problems and aspirations of education in positive and ameliorative ways” (p.4). Moses (2002) alluded to a similar short-sightedness leading to practice mistakes among educational researchers as well. In what seems to be a “piling on” in some publications or professional circles—the usefulness, purposes, or appropriateness of empirical research, positivistic inquiry, and “traditionalism” have been questioned,


criticized, and abandoned. Such a phenomenon is driven in part by postmodernist views that knowledge is only individual and relative. Moses discussed the spread of such a view with the adoption of qualitative methodologies in educational research. He counters, however, that:

quantitative and qualitative research methods ought not (and cannot) be distinguished and set in opposition to one another on the grounds that quantitative methods are inherently and exclusively positivistic and suited only for confirmation, whereas qualitative methods are inherently and exclusively interpretative and suited only for understanding. (p.2)

Fenstermacher (1994) is congruent with this observation, but would clarify that typical epistemic arguments and values within these research systems are in truth, different. Following his reasoning, it would seem shortsighted—as with Moses’ short-sighted policy-makers—for those seeking to describe teacher knowledge or to plan and facilitate teachers’ search for knowledge to delimit what passes for acceptable knowledge, as knowledges are many. As the physicist Schroedinger observed, we tend to find that for which we are looking and nothing else. Thus, as observed later in this paper, researchers seeking to define the type of knowledge teachers have or should have—tend to base their conclusions on the type of knowledge they are willing to accept and nothing else. Professional development planners, likewise, tend to develop programs which allow teachers to encounter knowledge experiences framed under a single type of knowledge. Such approaches are simplistic in meeting the professionalizing needs of individual teachers who are at varying knowledge levels of both formal, preceptual knowledge founded on empirical and propositional research (new content knowledge)—and varying on practice knowledge due to time-in-service, and the quality and degree to which they have learned from reflection on the experiences had.

Yet, as Wilson and Berne (1999) observe, based on a belief that traditional professional development has not worked, we are racing toward “new and better models.” They suggest, “Our readiness to embrace these new principles may, in fact, be rooted in a desire to escape collective bad memories of drab professional development workshops rather than in sound empirical work” (p.176).

In short, from either perspective, we know very little about how teachers learn, how they use what they learn, and what they need to learn to bridge the gap between where they “are” and where “we” wish them to be. Wilson and Berne (1999) believe researchers

need to think about the knowledge they hope teachers will acquire through these learning opportunities….Stipulating a clear set of expectations for teacher learning might enable more research on the acquisition of professional knowledge….The fact that communities, as well as individuals, acquire knowledge has implications for crafting and assessing all professional development. (p.186-187)

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________5

Darling-Hammond (1997, 1998, 1999) and Corcoran’s (1995) seminal work

typifies a major theoretical foci: teacher knowledge as primarily content or cognitively-based, which resonates with modern professional development goals and activities. These researchers place great value on traditional formal knowledge, consistent with an emphasis on an enhanced and specific knowledge base as the means to effective CPE (Darling-Hammond, 1998) and improvement of the teaching profession (Corcoran, 1995). In this model, teachers should:

1. understand subject matter deeply and flexibly, thereby facilitating this

understanding among students; 2. possess a knowledge of human developmental levels to include cultural and social

experience; 3. incorporate a variety of teaching strategies and possess an understanding of and

for different kinds of learning; and 4. exhibit a knowledge of curricular resources and technologies (Darling-Hammond,

1998). This conceptual or theoretical position of “what constitutes a model teacher” has

elsewhere been termed competency development and has produced a plethora of research and rhetoric attempting to define the competencies of a professional teacher. These competencies, according to Boyatzis (1982) ( as cited in Gonczi, 1994), may include or have included lists of tasks or behaviors performed against some objective standard, the ability to think critically or a complex formulation of knowledge, attitudes, values, and skills applied within particular contexts (Gonczi, 1994; Livneh & Livneh, 1999).

Measuring Knowledge Changes in Classroom Teachers

As the above cited literature and other authors note, the ability of a classroom teacher to infuse current and accurate science information in lessons with students is highly dependent upon that teacher’s science content knowledge preparation. Significant program funding has been provided nationally by the National Science Foundation for the provision of professional development for classroom teachers for the purpose of enhancing their content knowledge. This activity is founded on a decades-long belief and commitment that classroom teachers require support to bridge the gap between science content knowledge they may have acquired much earlier in undergraduate coursework, and more recent knowledge which is being created in science laboratories now. Funded as educational research activities, these programs are required to document “programmatic accomplishment and successes.” Only recently, however, has attention been placed on the rigor of these programs’ accomplishments as research endeavors so as to determine the research potential for instructional and assessment approaches to the broader educational field.


Methodology

One of those NSF efforts, the Centers for Ocean Sciences Educational

Excellence: Great Lakes, was funded as an eight-state, federal and state partnership to enhance ocean science content knowledge by classroom teachers and informal educators, and their ability to infuse that knowledge in their teaching of K-12 students. Inherent in this program design was the development of a programming and learning relationship between classroom teachers (end-users of knowledge) and research scientists (knowledge creators).

Over a two year period of programming within the five year effort, a sequence of structured measurements was taken to monitor the content knowledge of teachers at the beginning of the COSEE GL programs (front end assessment), regularly throughout the program (formative assessment), and at the end of each of three intensive, week-long professional development programs (summative assessment). The results of this monitoring will eventually be used to further track and describe the infusion practices of these classroom teachers following program participation to assess the specific content areas which most regularly impact K-12 students. At four distinct times in the instructional experience of these teachers, the researcher facilitated the preparation of concept maps using a controlled implementation procedure to collect data on the knowledge of the teachers, and the organization of that knowledge into thematic and disciplinary clusters. The use of concept maps for knowledge monitoring has emerged, as cited below, as an innovative and powerful measurement approach.

The use of concept mapping to monitor changes in content knowledge has been well-addressed in research literature (All & Huycke, 2007; Arslan, 2006; Chinnappan & Lawson, 2005; MacNeil, 2007; Uzuntiryaki & Geban, 2005). Over a sequence of concept maps created individually (Arslan, 2006; Hough, O’Rode, Terman, & Weissglass, 2007), or in small groups (All & Huycke, 2007; Hong, Losh, & Turner, 2007), changes in both the scope of content knowledge and the complexity of that knowledge can be observed and documented. Additionally, other NSF funded teacher education initiatives have used concept mapping procedures to isolate and measure growth in content knowledge of teachers (Hough et al., 2007). Novak and Gowin (1984), seminal researchers in the development of concept mapping for facilitating and assessing science education, note that concept maps were “developed specifically to tap into a science learner’s cognitive structure and to externalize, for both the learner and the teacher to see, what the learner already knows” (p.40). The ability to “tap into” and visualize the content learning of classroom teachers in these workshops was viewed as an important approach to not only monitor the effectiveness of COSEE GL in implementing its programming goals, but a way to leverage the assessment toward a contribution to learning theory, measurement theory, and program assessment literature simultaneously.

Using these field-tested approaches, the evaluator and internal program team for COSEE GL have systematically implemented data collection in the workshops (week-long, intensives meeting the content requirements and time for 3 credit hour graduate courses). These data, in the form of individual and group created lists of science concepts and propositions, and individual and group created concept maps, support a conclusion that individual classroom teachers have increased their content knowledge of

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________7

science in COSEE GL programs. Further, these data visualize the emergence of a hierarchical network (Hough et al., 2007; Novak & Gowin, 1984) of science content related to the Great Lakes that is substantially more complex and deeper at the end of program participation than at the beginning of program participation for teachers. The following narrative and charts demonstrate selections of the broad set of data that has been collected to date that support this conclusion and the method of analysis. Following this selection, analyses and findings from the broader set of concept map data are described and discussed.

Analysis of concept maps necessitates the use of a complex jargon which has emerged in the literature over time. Key vocabulary from this jargon with definitions are listed below, and have been substantially quoted from Hough et al. (2007) but are quite standard in the literature.

1. Concept—an idea/term/phrase contained in a single polygon or oval on a map; 2. Root—the central phenomena or initial definition/term/concept on a map; 3. Link—a line connecting two concepts; 4. Level—all concepts which share a distance X from the Root; 5. Depth—the distance in concepts for the longest chain of the map; 6. Width—the number of concepts in the largest level; 7. Chunk—a group of linked concepts for which the leading concept has at least two

successors; and 8. Crosslink—lines connecting two separate chunks.

The following charts (one through three) represent a sequence of three concept

maps created by teachers who participated in the COSEE GL Lake Huron Exploration Workshop in Alpena, MI during the summer of 2007. This workshop, implemented for participants over a seven day period, included a series of guest presentations from scientists and science educators, and included intensive field experiences nearly each day of the workshop. These three charts are selected from a larger set of maps created daily over the course of the week, both by individuals working in personal journals, and by small, ad hoc groups of students. There are three initial levels of emerging complexity evident in this smaller selection of maps provided here.

First, there is an evolving complexity in the use of vocabulary terminology. Second, there is an evolving complexity in the levels and number of linkages identified to connect the core phenomena (termed “root” in the literature), i.e. there are more connections drawn as the week progresses, and there are more interconnections drawn as the week progresses.

Chart 1 includes the overall title/content of the map (the root), which was provided by the project evaluator who led the mapping session. Extending from this root, a single connecting verb “includes” is linked to four terms encountered by participants. Further analysis of the situated context of these four terms within the workshop itself as delineated by the planned activities during day one (which further included orientation sessions and reading materials sent previously to participants) has not been completed.


Chart 1. Lake Huron exploration workshop (2007) Monday map.

The prompt for creation of this map was intentionally vague—with the root providing the prompt. The “so what” allowed respondents to freely associate interesting phenomena to the content area, without regard for correctness and pertinence to the workshop. Additional analyses will summarize all of the maps developed at this stage of the workshop to identify the overall impact of the workshop.

Chart 2 includes the same root prompt developed for and presented on the fourth day of the workshop. The first level core phenomena that emerge for this group of respondents includes more categorical level content place-holders, i.e. Terrestrial Science instead of plants, or Aquatic Science instead of fish. Additionally, the complexity of linkages is more obvious—with a mathematical increase in linkages. Additionally, the linkages are now on two or more levels, suggesting the increase in content experiences during the workshop at this point in time (Wednesday workshop). This phenomena is termed the “depth” of the concept map, and is a primary component of complexity in a map.

Chart 2. Lake Huron exploration workshop (2007) Wednesday map.

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________9

Chart 3. Lake Huron exploration workshop (2007) Friday map.

Chart 3 is the final concept map for one group collected on Friday morning of the workshop. The complexity, again, is increased from level two. The single connector “includes” linking the root to the overall map has been dropped by respondents as too prohibitive, but conceptually continues to guide the map’s content boundary. The first level of concepts is linked in some cases in two directions with each other, as the lines reciprocally from biology/life to and from culture/history demonstrate. Further, multiple connections from one concept to multiple phenomena are evident, as the links from geology to culture/history, biology/life, and human impact/issues demonstrate. These examples also demonstrate both chunks and crosslinks.

For each of the above three maps, a set of values was derived through counting. These values are termed hierarchical scores (Novak & Gowin, 1984) and selectively combine to create a hierarchical structure score or HSS (Hough et al., 2007). The HSS is calculated as width (w) plus depth (d) of each map. Table 1 also includes a Weighted Crosslink following Novak and Gowin (1984, p. 107) which is 2 (crosslink score). These values are included by category and map in Table 1. Further analyses of these values follow.


Table 1 Hierarchical Scores for Charts 1, 2, and 3

Score

Chart 1

Chart 2

Chart 3

Concepts

5 10 13

Width

4 5 5

Depth

2 3 6

Chunks

0 5 7

Crosslinks

0 4 6

Weighted Crosslinks

0 8 12

HSS

6 8 11

Based on this data collection approach, i.e. collection of maps early in the

workshop and at the end of the workshop for each of the three delineated workshops; multiple maps have been created by participants working individually and/or in small groups. A set of 20 group-created concept maps have been coded as in the example maps provided above to yield an appropriate data matrix for statistical analyses following Hough et al. (2007). These 20 maps include 10 each from the beginning of the weeklong programs and 10 from the end of the weeklong programs. Collectively, these 20 maps account for approximately 40 classroom teachers. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for the 20 maps collectively. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Map Variables

N Range Min. Max. Mean Std.

Deviation CONCEPT 20 49.00 3.00 52.00 16.1500 12.66273 WIDTH 20 10.00 3.00 13.00 5.4000 2.13739 DEPTH 20 7.00 2.00 9.00 4.6000 1.87504 CHUNK 20 8.00 .00 8.00 3.7500 2.46822 CROSSLIN 20 9.00 .00 9.00 2.8500 3.13344 HSS 20 17.00 .00 17.00 7.8000 5.29747 Valid N (listwise)

20

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________11

A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine the statistical relationship

between the early workshop maps and the end of workshop maps collected on the groups of teachers (Table 3). Specifically, a MANOVA was calculated using as dependent variables the number of concepts (CONCEPT), the Hierarchical Structural Score (HSS) for each map (calculated as W+D), the number of chunks in each map, and the number of Crosslinks in each map. It is noted that Hough et al. (2007) used the raw scores for crosslinks for maps in their analyses, whereas Novak and Gowin (1984) recommended using a weighted crosslink score of 2 or 3 times the crosslink number, based on an observation that the crosslink was a more substantive indicator of conceptual complexity than the width or depth of concepts alone or summed (the HSS). This researcher has adopted Novak and Gowin’s original recommendations in this analysis, using the weighted crosslink (WCL). Table 3 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable

Type III Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Partial Eta Squared

CONCEPT 1394.450(b)

1 1394.450 15.193 .001 .458

CHUNK 76.050(c) 1 76.050 34.481 .000 .657 WCL 84.050(d) 1 84.050 14.760 .001 .451 HSS 369.800(e) 1 369.800 40.737 .000 .694

Overall, it was found that there was a statistically, significant increase in content knowledge and knowledge complexity between the two groups of maps. Consequently, post hoc testing was calculated. Each of the individual dependent variables were found to be statistically, significantly greater for the end of workshop maps over the beginning of workshop maps using a Sidak correction to obtain more conservative results in the post hoc testing. The eta-values are a measure of the effect size of each of the individual dependent variables, and are strong. These data support a conclusion that there was a strong, positive increase in both content knowledge (number of concepts) and structural complexity (WCL and HSS) of that content knowledge for these classroom teachers. The eta score for HSS, the main unit of complexity of content knowledge, reveals that 69% of the overall score change is associated with increased complexity of knowledge by the teachers. The number of concepts accounted for approximately 45% of the overall change in dependent scores—significant but less than the complexity score. Levine’s Test finds the internal variances for CONCEPT (p<.05) and WCL (p<.05) at a cautionary level, but supports the use of the HSS and CHUNK scores (not significant).

Pairwise comparisons of the individual dependent variables were calculated using ANOVAs using the pre- and post-maps as the independent variables. Tables 4 and 5 support a conclusion that each dependent variable measured on the post-program maps


was statistically greater than that variable measured on the pre-program maps. Correcting for multiple, post hoc inferences using Sidak, each MAP 1 to MAP 2 comparison was statistically significant in one-tailed testing, only considering positive growth in the post-measures as important or desired.

In summary, based on the individual number of concepts included on the group created maps, there was a significant increase in the scope of science content knowledge associated with the Great Lakes by classroom teachers at the two, Lake Exploration workshops (land-based) and the one, Lake Guardian (ship-based) workshop from which map data were compiled for the analyses. Second, using the overall width and depth of the maps based on the concepts and the number and structure of their linkages as proxies for hierarchical structural complexity, there was a statistically significant improvement in the complexity of understanding of Great Lakes science content by these classroom teachers across these three workshops. This finding supports a conclusion that the COSEE GL team is effectively reaching one of its important program objectives. Finally, these programs were facilitated by science educators incorporating research scientists as the primary instructors who conveyed the new science content knowledge to these teachers. Consequently, these statistical analyses support a finding that these scientists were effectively meeting their “broader impact” objectives and concerns, and were effective in bridging the gap between their research findings and the cognitive needs of these classroom teachers. Table 4 Univariate Estimates of Map Score Differences

95% Confidence Interval Dependent Variable MAP Mean

Std. Error

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1 7.800 3.030 1.435 14.165 CONCEPT 2 24.500 3.030 18.135 30.865 1 1.800 .470 .813 2.787 CHUNK 2 5.700 .470 4.713 6.687 1 1.600 1.509 -1.571 4.771 CROSSLIN 2 9.800 1.509 6.629 12.971 1 3.500 .953 1.498 5.502 HSS 2 12.100 .953 10.098 14.102

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________13

Table 5 Significance of Pairwise Comparisons

Dependent Variable

(I) MAP

(J) MAP

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.(a)

CONCEPT 1 2 -16.700(*) 4.284 .001 2 1 16.700(*) 4.284 .001 CHUNK 1 2 -3.900(*) .664 .000 2 1 3.900(*) .664 .000 CROSSLIN 1 2 -8.200(*) 2.134 .001 2 1 8.200(*) 2.134 .001 HSS 1 2 -8.600(*) 1.347 .000 2 1 8.600(*) 1.347 .000

Based on estimated marginal means * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Sidak.

Conclusions and Discussion

It is clear from the analyses that the teachers who participated in the series of

workshops in this project have benefitted from significant increases in their content knowledge, and from a significant increase in their ability to structure that knowledge into meaningful and complex patterns or sets of content. It will be important to track these teachers as they infuse the content into authentic classroom settings, to describe the nature, scope, and characteristics of their use of the content in teaching before useful conclusions regarding the longer-term impacts of this program can be reached. However, it seems clear that several important observations can be made at this time.

First, literature and program reports alike are replete with program assessment data that are limited to participant-reported responses of the quality and appropriateness of programs. These data are substantially limited because of self-report bias and the nature of teacher responses to professional development generally. For example, we know that professional development experiences that are linked to stipends, free materials and supplies, and travel or other exotic program characteristics—or winsome and personable staff—will obtain more positive feedback from participants. We have little evidence that these positive emotional responses translate into better teaching, or in the short-run, whether they even translate into effective cognitive learning for participants initially. Directly measuring changes in content knowledge, from a baseline at the beginning of a learning event, at multiple points across that event, and at the end, allows researchers and program coordinators a more objective vantage point to view program impact.

Second, the results of this study are marked by a singularly important methodological improvement and advantage to the task of directly measuring content


change among program participants. Historically, the use of a criterion referenced pre-test and post-test has provided an important and nearly irreplaceable method for this measurement. Unfortunately, this requires advanced awareness of program content, and once that content has been incorporated into an instrument, it is difficult to “change on the fly.” Additionally, a somewhat advanced knowledge of test construction is necessary to create valid instruments. The use of the concept map avoids each of these problems. No advanced awareness of the specific content items to be taught—beyond a general awareness of the broader themes or disciplines of the learning event—is necessary. In the case of this research effort, the researcher began, literally, with a blank piece of paper and a knowledge that the content for the week-long program was generally within the framework of the Ocean Literacy Principles. Nevertheless, by using multiple maps developed over time and a well-reviewed analysis procedure to convert the narrative responses to mathematical data, the researchers are able to develop a significance level for the change in content knowledge and knowledge complexity that emerged across the program. This quantitative value, in turn, will allow the researchers to compare and infer findings across programs for theory development.

Finally, significant investment into teacher professional development is driven by the hope that the content provided in these workshops is ultimately infused in classroom teaching. Nevertheless, little empirical work has been done to track this. We rarely are informed whether the content provided teachers ever makes its way to their students. The concept maps which have been developed as primary data for this current manuscript are being maintained for secondary analysis. Currently, data are being collected at 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month intervals on the teachers who have participated in these workshops. They are being asked to provide lesson plans and sample student activities. These materials will be summarized and then compared back to the concept maps to identify which science content was ultimately taught to students, at what grade levels, in what format and over what time period. This will allow the project management and the researcher to describe the relationship between the original workshop activities, i.e. were the lab based, lecture based, ship based, field based, or other; did these activities result in enhanced content as measured on the concept maps reported in this manuscript; and, did that content eventually appear in classroom instruction of students.

References All, A. C., & Huycke, L. I. (2007). Serial concept maps: Tools for concept analysis.

Journal of Nursing Education, 46(5). Arslan, M. (2006). The influence of teaching note-taking and information mapping on

learning and recalling science. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 5(2).

Chinnappan, M., & Lawson, M. J. (2005). A framework for analysis of teachers’ geometric content knowledge and geometric knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 197-221.

Cook-Sather, A. (2009). Translation: An alternative framework for conceptualizing and supporting school reform efforts. Educational Theory, 59, 2.

HOWARD WALTERS ____________________________________________________________________________________15

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide

for state policymakers. Washington DC: National Governors’ Association through a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). What matters most: 21st century teaching. Education Digest, 63(3), 4-9.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.) (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: the nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20.

Firestone, W. A. (2009, May). Accountability nudges districts into changes in culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 670-676.

Gonsczi, A. (1994). Competency based assessment in the professions in Australia. Assessment in Education, 1(1).

Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2009, February/March). Wrong turn on school reform. Policy Review, 55-68.

Hong, G. E., Shen, S. L., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4).

Honig, M. I. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 394-413.

Hough, S., O’Rode, N., Terman, N., & Weissglass, J. (2007). Using concept maps to assess change in teachers’ understandings of algebra: A respectful approach. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 10, 23-41.

Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Livneh, C., & Livneh, H. (1999). Continuing professional education among educators: Predictors of participation in learning activities. Adult Education Quarterly, 49(2), 91-106.

MacNeil, M. S. (2007). Concept mapping as a means of course evaluation. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(5).

Moses, M. S. (2002). The heart of the matter: Philosophy and educational research. Review of Educational Research, 26.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (2006). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-313.


Uzuntiryaki, E., & Geban, O. (2005). Effect of conceptual change approach

accompanied with concept mapping on understanding of solution concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 311-339.

Wilson, S. M., &Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24.

annual report for award # 0528674 · information [news page], blogs from our week-long workshops...

Documents