|
|
Inventory and Assessment of K-12 and Professional Teacher Development Programs in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
E. RESULTS
Capacity Building Activity
In To look at capacity building for NERRS K-12 and PTD programs, a very broad definition is used. For the purposes of this study, capacity building is any activity or resource that might assist K-12 and PTD programs. This includes strengthening partnerships, program support, communication, funding, and training.
Partnerships
Through the online survey, ECs rate how partnerships could help improve their programs. There is strong agreement about the positive impact of partnerships:
- 83% of ECs agree that cooperation with outside partners to develop programs would help them improve educational programs at their Reserve (those who answered 5 or above on a scale of 1 to 10, mean 6.75). EC opinions on this item are clustered around 5 and 8 and at 10.
- 83% of ECs agree that cooperation with outside partners to run programs would help them improve educational programs at their Reserve (those who answered 5 or above on a scale of 1 to 10, mean 6.46). EC opinions on this item are clustered around 3 and 5, 7 and 8, and at 10.
- 75% of ECs agree that cooperation with outside partners to fund programs would help them improve educational programs at their Reserve (those who answered 5 or above on a scale of 1 to 10, mean 6.96). EC opinions on this item are clustered at 3, at 7 and 8, and at 10.
- 71% of ECs agree that cooperation with outside partners to obtain funding for programs would help them improve educational programs at their Reserve (those who answered 5 or above on a scale of 1 to 10, mean 6.67). EC opinions on this item are clustered at 3, and at 8 and 10.
In the follow-up interviews, partnerships are mentioned frequently as a key aspect in delivering K-12 and PTD programs. Partnerships are also mentioned as something that a system-wide program could help to encourage. Partnerships are used by Reserves in several major ways to: gain or share resources, build programs, and build relationships. Of the ECs who said that they use partnerships, a majority (56%) use partnerships to gain or share resources for funding (programs, salaries), people (staff, volunteers), facilities (classrooms, dorms), equipment (canoes, boats, lab materials), education or training materials, time, audience mailing lists, and transportation services.
A few Reserves (12%) use partnerships to build relationships with the community and with other organizations. These partnership opportunities did not necessarily gain resources or programmatic support for a Reserve, but probably provide long-term benefits in goodwill development. Relationship building included serving on advisory boards, working closely with schools, and working to build a community constituency for the Reserve.
A third of the Reserves (36%) use partnerships specifically to: build better programs, work together, outsource delivery of K-12 and PTD programs, avoid overlapping programs, build or “piggyback” programs on each other, develop and deliver joint programs, and enhance program marketing and PR efforts
The positive aspects of partnering cited by ECs include increased resources; the ability to access and serve larger audiences; the ability to accomplish more with less time and effort (or that you would not be able to accomplish alone); the selection of partners who add certain expertise or a different perspective; increased visibility and community goodwill; the joint use of well-trained volunteers; and the ability to prevent turf disputes.
The negative aspects of partnering cited by ECs include difficulty in planning and executing partnerships; differing missions, objectives, and needs among partners; unequal distribution of money or resources; lack of control of the process and product; and a host of logistical problems, such as communication difficulties, time management, increased demand for meetings, and personality conflicts.
ECs also identify three different categories that would improve their use of partnerships:
- Identifying overall guidelines for effective partnering
- Effectively addressing resource/logistics needs
- Increase programming opportunities through distance or joint programming
- Identifying overall guidelines for effective partnering would allow ECs to use partnerships at the optimal level, including finding the right person or organization to partner with, identifying new partners or renewing ties with partners that have fallen by the wayside, using the market analyses to find program overlaps and niches, and getting partnerships to be more beneficial and symbiotic overall.
- ECs say that partnerships can be used more effectively to address program and resource/logistic needs. Increased funding levels, improved training for staff and volunteers, increased communication, and enhanced overall use of program time would enhance their capabilities to deliver programs.
- ECs said that partnerships could be used to increase programming opportunities through distance programming or joint programming. They could accomplish this by finding partners to host off-site programs or share hosting duties, finding partners to teach programs that the EC cannot, and finding partners to expand the Reserves’ reach to new audiences. An example that one EC mentions is seeking more opportunities to partner with universities and community colleges.
Program Support
The Reserves Managers are generally supportive of the ECs and their education programs. The question “In what ways does the Reserve Manager help you?” illustrates that RMs primarily assist with operations and administrative needs (Fig. 24). Reserve Managers are generally supportive of ECs, while supporting the autonomy of ECs to manage their own areas of responsibility. For ease of reporting, the variety of responses is categorized into four areas: operations, communications, administrative, and other (Table 12).
The RMs responses to the same question about what roles they play in K-12 and PTD correspond to the ECs responses.
Figure 24. Education Coordinators Answers to the Question: “In what ways does your Reserve Manager help you?”
Table 12. Categories of Responses to the Question “In what ways does your Reserve Manager help you?”
Operations
- Developing ideas for programs
- Designing programso Coordinating programs
- Being a program instructoro Evaluating Programs
- Gives insight/adviceo Allows other staff to help with education
- Reviews programso Give leeway to develop programs
- Give input into the direction of entire education program
- Picks up supplieso On my education committee
|
Communications
- Helps with the political climate in my community
- Promotion of programs
- Strong community advice
- Marketing and PR
Administrative
- Finding outside funding for programs
- o Administrative support
- Provides up-to-date office equipment
- Assists with budgeting
Other
- Long-term vision and guidance
- Coaching of education staff
- Problem solving
|
Communication Within Reserves
Many ECs feel that increased communication with RCs would improve education programs. The Reserve staff at each site is small and the workload is great. It is often easy for staff to become narrowly focused on their area. Communication between staff occurs at all of the sites, but in many cases only when a specific need arises.
Reserve staff have different perceptions of the role K-12 and PTD programs play in helping the Reserves meet their overall objectives. ECs, SCs, RCs, and RMs are asked about the relative importance of K-12 and PTD in increasing community support for estuarine conservation, increasing understanding of estuarine ecosystems, promoting stewardship of estuaries, increasing citizen awareness of the Reserve, and changing behaviors. There is a general feeling that K-12 plays a greater role in meeting these Reserve objectives than PTD programs do.
Out of those surveyed, SCs feel the strongest that K-12 and PTD programs meet Reserve objectives. They consistently rate all of these categories the highest of the group surveyed. ECs feel strongly that K-12 programs assist with meeting the different objectives, but they do not feel PTD programs meet these needs as well. The areas that received the highest scores from all groups for both PTD and K-12 are increasing understanding of estuarine ecosystems and promoting stewardship of estuaries.
ECs have the largest difference in their scores for promoting stewardship of estuaries, with PTD programs receiving a mean of 6.61 and K-12 receiving a mean of 8.46. From previous discussion in the program implementation and design section, K-12 is rated higher because ECs feel that there are tangible benefits from teaching K-12 students directly and they are able to measure knowledge. ECs believe that they do not have the resources to follow-up with teachers after workshops to see if they understand the material and to find out how they will use the material in their classroom.
ECs also stated that many teachers are not interested or comfortable teaching this material to their students. Teachers have many different demands on their time and have less time to learn new subject matter. Therefore, teachers feel that the kids benefit from the Reserve education staff’s instruction. Working with “experts” such as the Reserve education instructors, students are given the opportunities to explore possible careers as well as the chance to learn accurate information from instructors who have specialized training.
Table 13 and 14 show that all key staff rate K-12 and PTD as relatively important for achieving Reserve goals, indicating that there is relatively strong support for both K-12 and PTD. However, K-12 is viewed as more important to achieving Reserve goals rather than PTD.
Table 13. Summary of Answers to the Question: “What is the relative importance of professional teacher development programs at your Reserve in relation to the following?”
* Highest Group Rating
|
Reserve Managers
|
Education Coordinators
|
Research Coordinators
|
Stewardship Coordinators
|
| Increasing community support for estuarine conservation |
5.79
|
5.92
|
5.94
|
7.88*
|
| Increasing understanding of estuarine ecosystems |
6.79
|
7.33
|
7.47
|
9.00*
|
| Promoting stewardship for estuaries |
6.79
|
6.61
|
6.71
|
8.00*
|
| Increasing citizen awareness of the Reserve |
6.07
|
5.25
|
6.88
|
7.75*
|
| Changing behaviors |
5.93
|
5.75
|
5.69
|
8.13*
|
Table 14. Summary of Answers to the Question: “What is the relative importance of K-12 programs at your Reserve in relation to the following?”
* Highest Group Rating
|
Reserve Managers
|
Education Coordinators
|
Research Coordinators
|
Stewardship Coordinators
|
| Increasing community support for estuarine conservation |
6.86
|
7.33
|
6.63
|
7.75*
|
| Increasing understanding of estuarine ecosystems |
7.36
|
7.33
|
7.75
|
9.25*
|
| Promoting stewardship for estuaries |
7.57
|
8.46*
|
6.63
|
8.38
|
| Increasing citizen awareness of the Reserve |
6.93
|
7.00
|
6.75
|
7.63*
|
| Changing behaviors |
7.00
|
7.33
|
7.00
|
8.50*
|
Communication Between Reserves
Education Coordinators are asked to indicate the degree the following types of cooperation between Reserves would help them improve educational programs at their Reserve. Similar to the other questions, the results for this question vary among ECs. The following are some of the results:
- Better communication among Reserves about programs: 41% of ECs do not feel like this would help them with their programs (score of 5 or below). 37% rate this an 8, 9, or 10.
- Cooperation with other Reserves to run programs: The mean for this question is very low, 4.58 and 67% of ECs rate this a 5 or below.
- Cooperation with Reserves to fund programs: This mean is a 5.00 with 29% feeling this is important (rating 8, 9, or 10) and 56% giving it a 5 or below.
- Cooperation with other Reserves to develop programs: This mean is also low (5.13) although 41% of ECs rate it a 7, 8, or 10.
- Cooperation with other Reserves to obtain funding for programs: 33% feel this would be helpful and rate it an 8, 9, or 10, and 43% rate it a 5 or less.
These results show that ECs are split on their feelings about inter-Reserve support. When a Tukey HSD post hoc cluster analysis was run on the data to determine if different groups of ECs emerged with varied preferences, three groups formed. Group 3 has significantly higher means for each answer than the other two groups. Group 3 (consisting of eleven Reserves) indicates that they are interested in working with other Reserves to improve programs. The remaining Reserves have less interest in working together nationally. Members of group 3 consistently rate the 7, 8, 9, or 10 responses (Table 15).
Table 15. Education Coordinator’s Answers to the Question: “Please indicate the degree the following types of support from the national office would help you improve educational programs at your Reserve.”
Mean: Low = 1-3.33, Medium = 3.34-6.66, High = 6.67-10.00
|
Overall Mean
|
Group 1 (n=10)
|
Group 2 (n=3)
|
Group 3 (n=10)
|
| Better communication among Reserves about programs |
6.29
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
High
|
| Cooperation with other Reserves to run programs |
4.58
|
Medium
|
Low
|
Medium
|
| Cooperation with other Reserves to fund programs |
5.00
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
| Cooperation with other Reserves to develop programs |
5.13
|
Medium
|
Low
|
Medium
|
| Cooperation with other Reserves to obtain funding for programs |
5.74
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
Reserve Level Support
Results indicate the areas where ECs would like more support for their education programs. Surprisingly, they do not indicate that they want more support from volunteers. This is possibly because volunteers are not utilized as often for K-12 and PTD programs as they are for other needs such as public education programs. K-12 and PTD programs are more often taught by trained educators as opposed to volunteers who are utilized in other areas of the Reserve. In some cases ECs would like volunteers, but do not have the time to recruit, maintain, and train a volunteer force to help with educational programs.
ECs identify that these areas need the most support: 1) securing funds for programs and 2) increasing communication about Reserve research. Because the results are so mixed on this question regarding Reserve-level support for PTD and K-12 programs, we ran a Tukey HSD post hoc cluster analysis to determine if groups emerged from the data that had similar preferences. Three groups formed. Group 1 consists of ten Reserves and this group rates all of the questions lowest, indicating that they do not feel they need much support from within their Reserve. Group 3 contains 11 Reserves and rates the questions highest, expressing a need for assistance from within the Reserve. All of the results between groups 1 and 3 were statistically significant except for volunteer need (Table 16).
Table 16. Education Coordinator’s Answers to the Question: “Please indicate the degree the following types of support from within your Reserve would help you improve educational programs at your Reserve.”
Mean: Low = 1-3.33, Medium = 3.34-6.66, High = 6.67-10.00
|
Overall Mean
|
Group 1 (n=10)
|
Group 2 (n=3)
|
Group 3 (n=10)
|
| More volunteer staff to assist with programs |
5.38
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
| Increased participation by paid Reserve staff in planning educational programs |
5.13
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
| Increased participation by paid Reserve staff with teaching/training for your educational programs |
6.00
|
Low
|
High
|
High
|
| Increased participation by paid Reserve staff to secure outside funding for your educational programs |
6.00
|
Low
|
High
|
High
|
| Increased communication with you about research being conducted at the Reserve |
5.58
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
National Support
ECs showed mixed interest in working together on a national level. The question, “Please indicate the degree the following types of support from the national office would help you improve educational programs at your Reserve” includes five areas: “System-wide NERRS educational program(s), system-wide NERRS educational curriculum(s), system-wide NERRS educational objectives, better communication with the national office, and National office assistance with securing outside funding.”
ECs indicate that they want assistance securing outside funding, and they are not of one mind concerning system-wide NERRS education programs, system-wide education curriculum, or improving communication with the national office. Since the results are so diverse on this question regarding national office support for Reserves, a Tukey HSD cluster analysis was conducted to determine if groups emerged from the data with similar preferences. Three groups formed. Group 2, containing ten Reserves, is most interested in receiving support from the national office in all areas. Group 3 consists of eight Reserves and gives the lowest scores, indicating that they feel less of a need for national support than the other Reserves. The answers between groups 2 and 3 were statistically significant (Table 17). Group 1, containing six Reserves rates each area as medium, meaning there is some interest in receiving support from the national office in these areas.
Table 17. Education Coordinator’s Answers to the Question “Please indicate the degree the following types of support from the national office would help you improve educational programs at your Reserve.”
Mean: Low = 1-3.33, Medium = 3.34-6.66, High = 6.67-10.00
|
Overall Mean
|
Group 1 (n=6)
|
Group 2 (n=10)
|
Group 3 (n=8)
|
| System-wide NERRSeducation programs |
5.58
|
Medium
|
High
|
Low
|
| System-wide NERRSeducation curriculums |
5.38
|
Medium
|
High
|
Medium
|
| System-wide NERRSeducational objectives |
5.92
|
Medium
|
High
|
Low
|
| Better communication with the national office |
5.58
|
Medium
|
High
|
Low
|
| National office assisting with outside funding |
7.17
|
Medium
|
High
|
Medium
|
Funding
Funding is a key factor identified by ECs that could improve capacity at their Reserves. While this is not a novel discovery, the types of funding and the uses for the funding show some important results. ECs were asked about the types of funding they feel would help them improve education programs at their Reserves (Fig. 25). They rated each type of support on a scale of 1-10. All of the means are over 5, however the response that received the highest amount of interest is the need for more paid education staff to assist with programs (8.96 mean). The next two highest categories are teacher stipends (7.19) and transportation (7.13), which suggests that ECs think providing incentives to teachers or schools will increase enrollment in their programs.
Figure 25. Indicate the degree these types of funding would help you improve educational programs at your Reserve
Although Figure 25 illustrates the overall means for the different Reserves, when the data is clustered, three groups are apparent. Group 2 represents the Reserves indicating that funding is a high priority in every a category of need while the other two groups have less needs or were able to better distinguish their priorities (Table 18).
Table 18. Cluster analysis summary indicating the degree these types of funding would help you improve educational programs the Reserves
Mean: Low = 1-3.33, Medium = 3.34-6.66, High = 6.67-10
|
Overall Mean |
Group 1(n=7) |
Group 2 (n=9) |
Group 3 (n=8) |
| EC Training |
7.08
|
High
|
High
|
Medium
|
| Teacher Stipends |
7.29
|
Low
|
High
|
High
|
| Substitutes |
6.04
|
Low
|
High
|
High
|
| Classroom/Training Facility |
6.04
|
Medium
|
High
|
Medium
|
| Program Evaluation |
7.04
|
Medium
|
High
|
Medium
|
| Staff |
8.96
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
| Materials |
6.71
|
High
|
High
|
Low
|
| Transportation |
7.13
|
Low
|
High
|
High
|
| Program design |
6.42
|
Medium
|
High
|
Low
|
| Curriculum design |
6.04
|
Medium
|
High
|
Low
|
Since paid education staff and teacher stipends, have the highest mean scores, greater detail is needed to explain their choices. ECs rated these highly because they feel that with more education staff they can provide more programs to reach more students and teachers, increase their menu of offerings, improve the safety aspects of the program, and give them the ability to target new and underserved audiences. In addition, some of the Reserves have staff that can focus on a particular age group. More Reserves want staff available to focus on specific grade levels, for example a staff person to focus on K-8 and one to focus on High school, college, and PTD. This would give staff the opportunity to focus on a smaller audience and learn about the specific needs of that audience.
In addition, different types of staff are requested. As discussed earlier, some ECs need part-time administrative assistance, some request a full or part-time volunteer coordinator, and some request full or part-time marketing assistance.
ECs indicate that funding for teacher stipends would help attract teachers to their workshops and trainings. Some Reserves feel that it is absolutely necessary because development and training is part of a teacher’s responsibility and they should be paid for their services. In some cases teachers are used to teach PTD programs and respondents believe they should be compensated for their services.
Some respondents favor an education fellowship similar to a scientific fellowship that can focus on a specific task such as program development, coordination of a specific initiative, or even an evaluation project. Graduate students could serve as education fellows, students could gain valuable experience, and the Reserves could gain added resources for specific tasks.
Sixty-two percent believe their current funding levels are adequate to maintain their current programming while 33% do not. Seventy-nine percent disagree that there is adequate funding to increase their current allotment.
Training
Continued EC training (mean 7.08) is also an important factor to improve programs. The question “How much experience do you have doing the following?” asks ECs to rate their experience level in various tasks (Table 19). To gain detailed insight, a Tukey HSD post hoc cluster analysis separated the Reserves into three groups. Two Reserves did not answer this question. Comparisons of the clustered means for each group were analyzed.
Table 19. Cluster Analysis of Education Coordinators Experience Levels “How much Experience do you have doing the following?”
Mean: Low = 1-3.33, Medium = 3.34- 6.66, High = 6.67-10 * Area of need
| Question |
Overall Mean
|
Group 1(n=9)
|
Group 2(n=7)
|
Group 3 (n=6)
|
| Creating curriculum* |
5.64
|
Medium
|
High
|
High
|
| Evaluating programs* |
4.68
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
High
|
| Developing education programs |
8.41
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
| Teaching K-12 students |
8.55
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
| Training teachers |
7.45
|
Medium
|
High
|
High
|
| Marketing education programs* |
5.73
|
High
|
Low
|
High
|
| Managing education programs |
8.32
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
| Correlating programs to state and national standards* |
5.27
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
High
|
In general, ECs believe they have a fair amount of experience, although group 3’s ratings indicate they are more experienced than those in groups 1 and 2. Training in evaluation, marketing, and correlating programs to standards are three important areas that a training program can address.
ECs indicate the degree to which the following types of training would help improve educational programs at their Reserve. In addition, some insight is gained from the question “How do you keep current with educational initiatives?” and was also used to interpret the responses.
A Tukey Post hoc cluster analysis determined three groups requesting specific types of trainings (Table 20). Group 1 rates most training types as medium with the exception of program assessment and evaluation (high). This group can be described as having already had moderate training or experience in all of these areas or they do not have the time or resources to devote to training. Group 2 rates most training types as low, which indicates that they either do not need or already had training, were not encouraged to seek training opportunities, or do not have extensive time available for training. Group 3 rated every category as high, which indicates that they are very open and supportive of training in all forms.
The four areas that are rated the highest by all groups are training for program evaluation and assessment, ecological knowledge/skills, educational standards testing, and proposal writing and fundraising.
Table 20. Cluster Analysis of the Question: “Please indicate the degree the following types of training would help you improve your educational programs at your Reserve?”
| Question |
Overall Mean (n=23)
|
Group 1 (n=10)
|
Group 2 (n=6)
|
Group 3 (n=7)
|
| Program assessment and evaluation |
6.74*
|
High
|
Low
|
High
|
| Curriculum design training |
6.87*
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
High
|
| Educational standardstesting |
6.48*
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
High
|
| Proposal writing/fundraising training |
6.22
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
| Program marketingtraining |
5.83
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
| Time management training |
5.09
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
| Computer software training |
5.17
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
| Supervisory training |
5.22
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
| Trainings to increase ecological knowledge/skills |
6.70*
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
Mean: Low = 1-3.33, Medium = 3.34- 6.66, High = 6.67-10 * Area of need.
|
|
|
