soil & growing soil final report

SOIL & Growing SOIL Final Report

Sheli Smith, Ph.D., Monica Hunter, Ph.D. Ketal Patel, Calvin Mires, Ph.D.

Growing SOIL Final Report October 30th, 2015

Submitted to:

Fairfield County Educational Service Center

Submitted by

THE PAST FOUNDATION

Sheli Smith, Ph.D., Monica Hunter, Ph.D. Ketal Patel, Calvin Mires, Ph.D.

Knowledge Capture Team Maria Green Cohen

Meghen Matta Lisa Beiswinger Kayla Galloway Rachel Orsborn

Alyssa Reder

Growing SOIL Project Team Beth Witte Jim Bruner Kat Deaner

Dr. Herb Broda Dr. Matthew Broda

Jim Dvorsky Darin Hadinger Ashley Bloom Dr. Ellen Cahill

Bridge Program Directors & Staff Beth Witte

Dr. Andrew Bruening Kelly Preheim

Andrew Bloom Ashley Bloom Jim Dvorsky Katie Sedin

Christy Jones Chris Perry

Sirrus Lawon Steve Boyle Kim Mullen

Darin Handinger Cari Ritzenthaler

Calvin Mires Erica Noll

Caitlin Davis Natika Washington

Zac Patterson

Copyright © 2015 PAST Foundation All Rights Reserved

Growing SOIL was made possible by partnerships with:

Fairfield County Educational Service CenterHocking College

Kelleys Island School DistrictCOSI

Baldwin Road Jr. High SchoolBioMed STEM Academy High School

eSTEM High SchoolMetro Early College High School

Metro Early College Middle SchoolNational Inventor's Hall of Fame Middle School

Starling Middle SchoolWest High School

Westmoor Middle SchoolFairfield Ridgeview Middle School

Fairfield High SchoolFederal Hocking Middle SchoolFederal Hocking High School

Lancaster High SchoolMillersport High School

Growing STEM Outdoor Innovation Lab (SOIL) October 30th, 2015 Final Report

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...5 Section 2: Final Update……………………….……………………………………………………….....8 Section 3: Cohort 1: SOIL………………………..……………………………………...……………...10 Section 4: Cohort 2: Growing SOIL……………..………………………………………………….....28 Section 5: Recognized Barriers & Potential Solutions….………………………………………...….35 Section 6: Recommendations……………...……………………………………………………...…...37 Section 7: Conclusion……………………………….………...……………………………………...…39 Section 8: Professional Development Appendix……………………………….…………………….41 Section 9: Knowledge Capture: Growing SOIL Formative Evaluation Final Report…..…………62 Section 10: Growing SOIL Knowledge Capture Appendix……………………………………...….76

1

INTRODUCTION

Between January 2014 and September 2015 through the generous support of Ohio Straight A

funds in rounds 1 and 2, SOIL (STEM Outdoor Learning Labs) was able to reach out across the state

and dynamically utilize space that is traditionally under-utilized at schools to increase the planning

and implementation of problem-based learning in grades 5 through 12. The program collectively

partnered with 16 school districts, stretching from Lake Erie to the Kentucky border, the Fairfield

ESC, COSI, Hocking College, and the PAST Foundation, along with numerous community

businesses and organizations. Growing SOIL funded in Straight A Round 2 brought on the growth

of the initial program by challenging the first cohort of 9 SOILabs to partner or “buddy” with other

local programs in order to more fully utilize the modules and labs created in Round 1. Thus,

another 9 buddy programs were established on top of the 15 anchor SOILabs by the culmination of

the second grant growing the reach of the program to 24 schools.

All 15 SOILabs participated in the same process, which followed the principles of design associated

with STEM education -- brainstorm, plan, build, evaluate, modify, and ultimately share. The

responsibilities within the grant were divided among the partners and participants to help insure

the timely completion and success of the program. Kelleys Island School District and the Fairfield

ESC provided fiscal oversight for both rounds of the funding. PAST Foundation provided the

programmatic content of the grant, which included professional development, for planning and

TPBL module development (Transdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning), SOILab construction

oversight, Bridge immersion programs at the prototyping field stations, and communication and

5

2

collaboration oversight among the participating schools. COSI

provided space and personnel for the authentic presentations as

well as “brainstorming partners” in the design of the labs. Kelleys

Island and Hocking College developed prototyping

environmental field stations for Bridge Immersion programs that

provided opportunities for teachers and students at the

participating schools in order to experience TPBL programs in

action.

The SOIL process was stepped, guiding each team through the

principles of design to plan, create, implement, evaluate, modify,

and share modeling what good STEM practice looks like at every

level of the program. Before a team was able to access the

funding set aside through the Straight A fund, they were required

to thoughtfully design and budget their own unique outdoor lab

fitting the product to their particular needs. In Straight A Round 1

nine programs -- 4 middle schools and 5 high schools, piloted the

program planning and creating SOILabs from Akron to Columbus.

The outdoor labs reflected environments from urban to rural,

public school and charter. Through internal evaluation, the

project team was able to identify constraints and changes that

would better future SOILab growth and amplify the impact of the

program. A second proposal was submitted to Straight A in

Round 2. After negotiations with Ohio Department of Education,

the proposal was revised to accommodate reduced funding.

Growing SOIL focused on expanding anchor SOILabs to 15 by

bringing on 6 more schools -- 2 middle schools and 4 high

schools -- rounding out the anchor labs creating a string of

SOILabs from Akron to the border of Kentucky. The second

granted program also targeted reaching further into communities

to expand the impact of the cohort 1 SOILabs through increased

partnerships and “buddy” programs.

As we review the SOIL program looking at individual schools,

buddy programs, prototyping field labs, and the overall impact

educationally and within communities, we will also recognize the

constraints faced by the project some of the successful solutions

employed and some of the continuing obstacles that still require

address to insure that this program continues to organically grow

___________________ SOIL Cohort 1

Baldwin Rd Junior High School BioMed STEM Academy High

School eSTEM High School

Metro Early College Middle School

Metro Early College High School

National Inventor’s Hall of Fame Middle School

Starling Middle School West High School

Westmoor Middle School

Kelleys Island Environmental Field Station

SOIL Cohort 2

Fairfield Ridgeview Middle School

Fairfield High School Federal Hocking Middle School Federal Hocking High School

Lancaster High School Millersport High School

Hocking College Environmental

Field Station

SOIL & Growing SOIL Partners

Kelleys Island School District

Fairfield ESC PAST Foundation

COSI Hocking College

__________________________

6

3

and serve the surrounding communities and educational landscapes.

The report is set up to follow the principles of design. As the SOIL team worked with individual

teams and cohorts, we were conscious of the pattern used to model good planning, good practice

and authentic audiences. Thus the entire process associated with both SOIL and Growing SOIL

followed the principles of design from issuing the challenge of utilizing under-used space at

existing schools, to modeled immersive learning, to building and utilizing planned space. In each

phase of the project the SOIL team was there to support the individual schools and cohorts setting

up networks for the schools to use and processes for the schools to replicate.

Each quarter PAST has submitted a report to Ohio Department of Education chronicling the

process and deliverables for SOIL. We are proud to report that together SOIL and Growing SOIL

reached over 6250 students and more than 50 teachers, producing 100 replicable TPBL modules

(transdisciplinary problem-based learning) for use in SOILabs and classrooms across Ohio.

Moreover, though SOIL and Growing SOIL, 282 students and 20 teachers took advantage of the

opportunity to experience problem-based learning in immersive programs that featured

prototyping programs at two field stations, Kelleys Island Prototyping Education Field Station and

Hocking College Prototyping Field Station. Both programs immersed middle and high school

students in environmental programs that addressed authentic issues confronting the environment.

All quarterly reports are publicly available through Ohio Department of Education and will only be

highlighted in this final report.

Included in this final report is a report on the 5th quarter SOILab site visit charettes along with an

overview of the 15 SOILab and how each SOIL team has used the principles of design to critically

work though all phases of creating and sustaining the outdoor innovation labs. The initial tables

have been previously published in quarterly reports but provide an overview of the key benchmarks

for the two projects.

7

1

Final Update Final Site Charettes In Fall 2015 the SOIL project team made a final visit to each of the SOILabs to see what progress is

being made and what future plans are in the works (Table 7). The visits did not begin until the

academic school year had settled in and the programs had a chance to reengage students. Dr.

Herb Broda has led the charette team throughout the entire SOIL project providing continuity,

ingenuity, and expertise to the conversation, which ultimately helped each team stretch beyond

intial concepts into fuller utilization of space and content.

In the Appendix section the site visit forms review the sites in terms of

• SOILab completion,

• School faculty participation in the SOIL,

• Future plans for the SOILab,

• Continuing needs of the school faculty to fully engage the program,

• Buddy program implementation, and

• Observations by the SOIL project team.

Table 8 is a quick overview of programmatic success at each location in terms of the completion,

outreach to buddy programs if applicable, participation of faculty, and overall sense of success.

General Management Overview (September 2015)

Event Date & Time Objective Additional Notes

Planning and organizing site visits

9/14-9/22 To efficiently and effectively visit the SOILabs

Herb Broda, Calvin Mires, Ashley Bloom, Jim Dvorsky, and Jim Bruner

Site Visits 9/24 —9/25 To observe the uses and growth of the SOILabs

Herb Broda, Jim Dvorsky, Calvin Mires, Jim Bruner

Planning and organizing Virtual Brainstorms

9/ Prepare for summer Bridge Programs

Calvin Mires, Ketal Patel

Table 7

8

2

This culminates the active part of the two Straight A grants (Round 1 and 2) ,but does not end the

growth of the SOILabs individually. For example, in the instance of Baldwin Jr. High School’s

SOILab lost their administrator and all their teachers in both round 1 and round 2, yet in both

instances have continued to expand the program and get more teachers and students involved.

This reflects the power of the program in the face of adversity.

Although it will be difficult to capture the full impact of SOIL with simple numbers, the attention that the program has gained regionally and nationally reflects a broad impact in driving resources to the classroom, changing the landscape of STEM instructional strategies, and re-envisioning where learning takes place.

Table 8: Programatic Overview by SOILab SOILab Completion Outreach Broad Participation Overall Success

Baldwin Jr. HS Yes Herbert Mills Elem Increasing increasing Biomed HS Yes Mabel Schnee Elem High High eSTEM HS Yes Summit Elem Low at HS,

High at Elem Mixed

Fairfield MS & HS n/a High High Federal Hocking MS & HS n/a Lancaster HS n/a High High Metro MS & HS Yes Metro Parks & Rec Low Low Millersport HS Millersport Elem Low Low NIHF MS Yes Harold Arnold Elem High High Starling MS Yes Starling Elem High High West HS Yes MC2 HS Unknown Unknown Westmoor MS Yes Valley View Elem High High

9

1

Cohort 1:

The first SOIL cohort consisted of 9 schools (Baldwin Junior

High School, Biomed STEM Academy, eSTEM High School,

Metro Middle and High Schools, National Inventors Hall of

Fame Middle school, Starling Middle School, West High

School, and Westmoor Middle School). Each SOILab was

awarded $10,000 to construct a SOILab on the property of

their school. However prior to construction each school was

required to identify a team that would plan the SOILab,

create a budget for the lab, take students to experience

immersive Transdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning (TPBL)

at the Kelleys Island Prototyping Environmental Field Station,

attend TPBL professional development, create planned

modules to implement in the SOILabs, and implement the

TPBL modules, as well as regularly report in a public forums

their progress, constraints, and future plans.

Between winter and summer 2014, these 9 schools

accomplished an amazing amount of planning, participation,

and construction, successfully creating 9 distinctive SOILabs

by summer 2014. Some of the distinctive attributes of SOIL

planning and implementation were that the project team and

the each of the SOILab teams focused on

• Innovation of outdoor learning labs that resonated with

the needs of the individual schools so that no two

labs are identical,

• Sustainability in planning so that the addition of the lab

and utilization of underutilized space would not place

a financial burden on the school after the grant

tenure was concluded, and

• Connectivity in usage of the SOILabs so that whether

or not individual teachers remained at the school the

use of the labs would continue.

The focus of Innovation, Sustainability, and Connectivity

helped keep all the teams focused as well as illuminated

constraints that were addressed in the round 2 of Straight A

funding. In round 2 of Straight A, SOIL was honored to

_____________________

SOIL Project Team

Dr. Sheli Smith Dr. Monica Hunter


Kat Deaner Beth Witte Jim Bruner

Kelleys Island School District

Bridge Program Directors & Staff

Beth Witte

Kelly Preheim Dr. Andrew Bruening

Andrew Bloom Ashley Bloom Jim Dvorsky Katie Sedin

Christy Jones Chris Perry

Sirrus Lawon Steve Boyle

_____________________

10

2

receive funding to “grow” the program. The dual focus of the

second grant Growing SOIL aimed at reaching into regions of

the state previously untapped and creating a second

prototyping environmental field station, as well as growing the

initial cohort of 9 schools by reaching deeper into the

community through partnerships and “buddy” program

outreach to grow the existing programs. Cohort 1 schools were

awarded an additional $4,500 to expand their programs and

bring on a “buddy” program to empower organic growth of the

SOILabs.

Growing SOIL got underway in Fall 2014 for Cohort 1 repeating

the steps of planning and implementation for growing the

programs they had established the prior spring 2014.

Throughout both SOIL and Growing SOIL the project team

utilized the information and guidance produced by in-house

evaluation to regularly monitor communication and fidelity to

the SOIL goals. In-house evaluation or Knowledge Capture also

helped the project team recognize constraints within the project

and external pressures that created constraints and obstacles to

success. A number of actionable changes observed in SOIL

became guiding criteria for Growing SOIL.

Growing SOIL Project

Team

Dr. Sheli Smith Dr. Monica Hunter


Darin Hadinger Beth Witte Kat Deaner

Ashley Bloom Dr. Calvin Mires Dr. Ellen Cahill

Jim Dvorsky Fairfield ESC

Hocking College

Bridge Program Directors & Staff

Kim Mullen

Darin Hadinger Cari Ritzenthaler

Ashley Bloom Calvin Mires

Andrew Bloom Katie Sadin Erica Noll

Caitlin Davis Natika Washington

Zac Patterson

External Evaluation provided by

Harkin Consulting LLC

___________________________

11

Table 2: Distinctive Characteristics of SOILabs

SOILabs Lab Features In Process & In Planning

Baldwin Rd Interior Courtyard with bog and water feature • Greenhouse • weather station • garden beds • birdhouse with webcam live feed

BioMed STEM Academy Nature trail • outdoor classroom • low ropes course • storage shed

eSTEM High School Wetlands Trail • signage • trees • outdoor classroom • story walk • wetlands web cam

Fairfield Union Benches for meeting area, pond reclamation • new trail around outdoor space • maple syrup collection • geocaching • creating a video to market SOILab to other schools and community • new shelter house classroom • survey of property, forestry plan

Federal Hocking Creating “prairie space” • signage for flora within designated prairie space • benches in prairie space to encourage small groups • a biodiversity database • weather station

Lancaster High School Water feature in courtyard providing access for all students • refurbishing the greenhouse • indoor greenhouse • picnic table space • herb gardens to augment culinary studies • reclamation of pond •

Metro Raised garden beds • outdoor classroom • hydroponic vertical garden indoors • precision agriculture flight

Millersport New outdoor covered learning space • reclamation of wetland drainage • weather station

National Inventors Hall of Fame Middle School

Natural Habitat snake mound • greenhouse • bio-sculpture • composters • weather station • tulip garden • birdhouses

Starling Middle School Physics Hill with activity stations• flower beds • concepts trail with activity stations• outdoor seating area

West High School greenhouse • herb gardens • outdoor seating area • composter

Westmoor Middle School greenhouse • bat boxes • outdoor seating area • music steps • outdoor scrabble game board

First presented in 2015 4th Quarter Growing SOIL Report (July 2015)

12

Table 3: Cohort 1 SOILab buddy programs CHECKLIST

Cohort I School Buddy School

Akron - National Inventors Hall of Fame Akron - Harold Arnold Elementary School

Reynoldsburg - Baldwin Middle School

Reynoldsburg - Herbert Mills Elementary School

Reynoldsburg - eSTEM High School

Reynoldsburg - Summit Elementary School

Columbus City Schools - Starling Middle School Columbus - Starling Elementary School

Columbus City Schools - West High School Cleveland - MC2 STEM High School

Columbus City Schools - Westmoor Middle School

Columbus - Valley View Elementary School

Charter Schools - Metro Middle School Columbus - Tremont Elementary School

Charter Schools - Metro High School

Columbus Metro Parks and Recreation Program

Charter Schools - BioMed STEM Academy

Rootstown - Mabel Schnee Elementary School

funds expended to attract and augment buddy school programs

benefit from the funds expended for their participation in SOILabs or SOILab programs

�1

First presented in 2015 4th Quarter Report (July 2015)

13

Table 4: TPBL Modules created for SOIL by SOIL teams

!!

!

G

row

ing

SO

IL C

om

ple

ted

Mo

du

les

(Pag

e 1

)

Dis

tric

t N

ame

of

Mo

du

le

Co

nte

nt

Are

a G

rad

e L

eve

l

Reyn

old

sbur

g

Con

tam

inan

ts in

loca

l wat

er

that

cou

ld a

ffect

the

su

stai

nab

ility

of a

n ec

osys

tem

Scie

nce,

Mat

h, S

ocia

l St

udie

s, E

LA

7th

Gra

de

Bio

-Med

A

dd

ress

ing

the

Em

eral

d A

sh

Bor

er in

our

out

doo

r la

b a

t B

io-M

ed

Bio

log

y 9t

h-12

th G

rad

e

Reyn

old

sbur

g

Educ

ate

and

Info

rm t

he

Com

mun

ity a

bou

t ou

r W

etla

nd a

nd It

s us

es.

Che

mis

try,

Bio

log

y, A

P Po

litic

s, E

LA

9th-

12th

Gra

de

Met

ro E

arly

Col

leg

e

How

doe

s a

com

mun

ity's

w

ater

ava

ilab

ility

imp

act

it's

econ

omic

sta

bili

ty a

nd

sust

aina

bili

ty?

Soci

al S

tud

ies,

Mat

h,

Eng

inee

ring

, Sci

ence

, ELA

9t

h-11

th G

rad

e

Nat

iona

l Inv

ento

rs H

all o

f Fam

e In

vasi

ve S

pec

ies

Rem

oval

So

cial

Stu

die

s, M

ath,

La

ngua

ge

Art

s 7t

h G

rad

e

Col

umb

us C

ity S

choo

ls

Wha

t is

an

outd

oor

inno

vatio

n la

b a

nd h

ow is

it

used

?

Scie

nce,

Mat

h, S

ocia

l St

udie

s, E

LA

K-8

th G

rad

e

Col

umb

us C

ity S

choo

ls

How

do

bird

s m

eet

bas

ic

need

s fo

r su

rviv

al?

Scie

nce,

Mat

h, S

ocia

l St

udie

s, E

LA

6th-

8th

Gra

de

Col

umb

us C

ity S

choo

ls

Food

Ava

ilab

ility

Sc

ienc

e, M

ath,

Soc

ial

Stud

ies,

ELA

10

th G

rad

e

Firs

t pre

sent

ed in

201

5 3rd

Qua

rter

Gro

win

g SO

IL R

epor

t ( A

pril

2015

)

14

!!

!

G

row

ing

SO

IL C

om

ple

ted

Mo

du

les

(Pag

e 2

)

Dis

tric

t N

ame

of

Mo

du

le

Co

nte

nt

Are

a G

rad

e L

eve

l Fa

irfie

ld U

nion

W

ater

Qua

lity

Scie

nce

11th

-12t

h G

rade

Fa

irfie

ld U

nion

To

pogr

aphi

c M

aps

Scie

nce

8th

Gra

de

Fairf

ield

Uni

on

Map

le S

yrup

Sc

ienc

e- F

ores

try

10th

Gra

de

Lanc

aste

r City

Sch

ools

Er

osio

n, W

ater

Pur

ifica

tion,

W

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Air

Pollu

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sci

ence

s 9t

h-12

th G

rade

Mill

ersp

ort-

Wal

nut T

owns

hip

How

do

chan

ges

to B

ucke

ye

Lake

affe

ct o

ur c

omm

unity

, w

ildlif

e, a

nd w

ater

qua

lity?

Bio

logy

, Mat

h,

Econ

omic

s, S

cien

ce

(Mid

dle

Scho

ol),

Che

mis

try

6th

Gra

de-1

2th

Gra

de

Mill

ersp

ort-

Wal

nut T

owns

hip

How

doe

s th

e lo

w w

ater

leve

l of

Buc

keye

Lak

e af

fect

the

loca

l Eco

nom

y?

Econ

omic

s 12

th G

rade

Fede

ral H

ocki

ng L

ocal

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Hab

itats

Aro

und

Us

Scie

nce-

Eco

logy

7t

h G

rade

In a

ddi

tion

to t

he T

PBL

proj

ect

mod

ules

dev

elop

ed b

y Fa

irfie

ld U

nion

teac

hers

and

not

ed in

this

tab

le, o

ver t

he s

umm

er (2

015)

teac

hers

from

eve

ry

grad

e le

vel a

t Fai

rfie

ld U

nion

cre

ated

TPB

L m

odul

es in

tend

ed to

take

ad

vant

age

of t

he S

OIL

abs.

The

ir w

ork

brin

gs

the

num

ber

of re

plic

able

mod

ules

to

100

.

15

Table 5: Participation in Immersive Bridge Programs 2014 at Kelleys Island

Bridge Program Participation

SOILabs Opportunities for Student Participation

No. of students sent to Kelleys Island Bridge Programs

Opportunities for Teacher Participation

No. of Teachers sent to Kelleys Island Bridge Programs

Baldwin Rd Junior High School

20 20 2 2

Biomed STEM Academy 20 20 2 2

eSTEM High School 20 17 2 1

Metro Middle School & High School

40 39 4 2

National Inventors Hall of Fame

20 19 2 2

Starling Middle School 20 18 2 1

West High School 20 19 2 2


20 18 2 2

Open Programs in June

MC2 STEM Academy na 7 na

Kelleys Island 20 15 na

Other 1

200 193 18 14

First reported in final 2014 report

16

Table 6: Participation in Immersive Bridge Programs 2015 at Hocking College

Bridge Program Participation

SOILabs & Buddy Schools Opportunities for Student Participation

No. of students sent to Hocking Bridge Programs

Opportunities for Teacher Participation

No. of Teachers sent to Hocking Bridge Programs

Baldwin Rd Junior High School

5 5

Biomed STEM Academy 5 0

eSTEM High School 5 1

Fairfield Union Middle School & High School

40 28 4 4

Federal Hocking Middle School & High School

40 9 4 1

Kelleys Island 5

Metro Middle School & High School

10 10

Lancaster High School 20 0 2

National Inventors Hall of Fame

5 5

Starling Middle School 5 1

Walnut Township — Millersport

20 25 2 1

West High School 5 0

MC2 STEM Academy (buddy) 5 5

Westmoor Middle School 5 0

Extra Seats 25

200 89 12 6

First reported in Quarter 4 2015 report

17

Baldwin Rd. Junior High School

Design team attended January, February and March Planning workshops presenting their plan in March 2014.

Design was for an interior courtyard at the school creating biomes. Students began working on projects before construction started.

Baldwin Team participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 20 students and 2 teachers participated in the Bridge immersion program at Kelleys Island in 2014. TPBL Topic: Contaminants in local water that could affect the sustainability of an ecosystem

Students and teachers decided to expand the SOILab out into the side yard of the school in Growing SOIL.

Students created growing basins from play pools expanding the SOILab beyond the interior courtyard.

Baldwin reached out to Herbert Mills Elementary School part of the Reynoldsburg STEM feeder system as a “buddy” school to share their program and modules with.

Constraints : • High turnover of teachers and district strike slowed progress during Growing SOIL

Proposed Solutions: • Concentrated communication with principal and coordination of new teachers to get the

program up and running again. This has been successful

18

BioMed STEM Academy High School

Design team attended January, February and March Planning workshops virtually presenting their plan in March 2014.

Design was Nature trail • outdoor classroom • low ropes course • storage shed

Biomed Team participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 20 students and 2 teachers participated in the Bridge immersion program at Kelleys Island in 2014. TPBL Topic: Addressing the Emerald Ash Borer in our outdoor lab at Bio-Med

Students and teachers decided enchance the SOILab with a shed to store tools in Growing SOIL.

Students found have the shed saved time and enabled them to expend more time at the outdoor site.

Biomed reached out to local elementary school to partner during the school year.

19

eSTEM High School


Wetlands Trail • signage • trees • outdoor classroom • story walk • wetlands web cam

eSTEM Team participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 17 students and 1 teacher participated in the Bridge immersion program at Kelleys Island in 2014. TPBL Topic: Educate and Inform the Community about our Wetland and Its uses

Students and teachers created a second nature trail and signage that helps interpret the wetlands near the Summit Elementary in Growing SOIL.

The initial SOIL trail has fallen into disuse, but the trail at the elementary school has been incorporated into their school theme.

eSTEM reached out to adjacent Summit elementary school to partner during the school year.

Constraints : • Distance to wetlands and District wide strike cited as constraints

Proposed Solutions: • Use of bicycles acquired from Sheriff’s department. Extending path up closer to school

building.

20


Raised garden beds • outdoor classroom • hydroponic vertical garden indoors • precision agriculture flight

Metro Team participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 39 students and 2 teachers participated in the Bridge immersion program at Kelleys Island in 2014. 10 students and no teachers particpated in the Bridge immersion program at Hocking College in 2015.

SOIL is not complete. Aquaponics system is only partially system and not operational. Two raised beds are actively attended.

There is one teacher using the aquaponics raised beds as part of her horticulture curriculum. More teachers need to learn and engage with the SOIL facility.

It appears that other schools and grade levels have not used the Outdoor Lab.

Constraints : • Lack of facility development and teacher engagemet. Ohio State students designated to

construct facility fulfilled their academic requirements and left the project. Proposed Solutions:

• Concentrated communication with principal and coordination of new teachers to get the program up and running again. Need to find a champion for SOIL.

Metro Early College Middle & High Schools

21

National Inventor’s Hall of Fame Middle School


Natural Habitat snake mound • greenhouse • bio-sculpture • composters • weather station • tulip garden • birdhouses

National Inventor’s Hall of Fame Middle School participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 19 students participated in the Bridge immersion program at Kelleys Island in 2014. 5 students particpated in the Bridge immersion program at Hocking College in 2015.

The National Inventors Hall of Fame Middle School was able to leverage the SOILab to attract a donation of a weather station from the EPA.

The SOILab components continue to grow in use holistically throughout the entire school.

The fully functional weather station includes state of the art equipment that collects and is able to disseminate data about the weather patterns in urban downtown Akron. This information will be ava ilable for sharing amongall of the SOILabs and their buddies.

22


Physics Hill with activity stations• flower beds • concepts trail with activity stations• outdoor seating area

Starling Middle School participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 18 students and 1 teacher participated in the Bridge immerrsion program at Kelleys Island in 2014. 1 student and no teachers went to the Bridge immersion program at Hocking College in 2015.

Lab used by teachers for outdoor reading, class discussions, science and math lessons.

Most usage has occurred around the building with little use for the “trail” or hilltop areas.

Other schools were not mentioned, but it appears that multiple grade levels have used the lab for a change of pace and place.

Constraints:

• High turnover of teachers Proposed Solutions:

• Concentrated communication with principal and coordination of new teachers to get the program up and running again.

Starling Middle School

23


greenhouse • herb gardens • outdoor seating area • composter

West High School participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July. 19 students participated in the Bridge immerrsion program at Kelleys Island in 2014.

No visit to the site was possible.

The greenhouse is primarily used by science but in its second year is branching into the humanities.

The science teacher has been coordinating with Starling Middle School in creating vertical alignment between the two SOILabs.

West High School

24


greenhouse • bat boxes • outdoor seating area • music steps • outdoor scrabble game board

Westmoor Middle School participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. Construction of the SOILab began in April and was completed in July.

The SOIL facility was well-maintained and in obvious use.

The facility was used with 6-7 teachers and their classes teaching courses from math, science, and ELA teachers.

The prinicipal is looking forward to incorporating other schools like Valley View Elementary School into the curriculum.

Constraints:

• Roof needs to be secured from access by students and vandals. Proposed Solutions:

• If roof can be secured, SOIL facility could possibly be expanded.


25

Cohort 1 Highlights from Quarterly Reports October 30th, 2014 Quarterly Report National Inventors Hall of Fame NIHF has transformed the outdoor balcony space above the parking structure into a beautiful outdoor lab space. There are three huge garden beds along with a green house structure and weather lab available for student use. The science department and visual arts department have partnered to create a beautiful space for student exploration. NIHF has multiple community partners engaging in the project: NOVA Foundation, Cuyahoga Falls National Park, and Helen Arnold Elementary School.

January 30th, 2015 Mid- Year Report

26

April 30th, 2015 Quarterly Report Starling Middle School Baldwin Junior High

Starling Middle School students and teachers work side by side to ready the built up beds for planting.

Baldwin Junior High students explore the properties of soil preparing to get topsoil ready

July 30th, 2015 Quarterly Report Spring Photo Album Highlights of SOILabs

eSTEM Signage around the wetlands employed the combined efforts of the FabLab, biology, and English

Westmoor New portable greenhouse joins Westmoor’s SOILab features

27

Cohort 2: Growing SOIL Through the generous support of Straight A: Round 2, Growing SOIL responded to recognized

constraints of SOIL and recommendations to

• Create support to expand the existing 9 SOILabs,

• Plan and construct 6 new SOILabs in the southeastern region of Ohio,

• Support the creation of a second prototyping environmental field station,

• Provide teachers with P3 online professional development, and

• Provide the bridge immersion opportunities for students and teachers from the SOILab

schools.

Each of the cohort 2 schools (Fairfield Union Middle and High Schools, Federal Hocking Middle and

High Schools, Lancaster High School, and Millersport High School) were awarded $10,000 to plan,

construct and implement programs around a SOILab just as the Cohort 1 schools had done the

year before. Cohort 2 took part in planning workshops, public presentations, and site charettes.

From lessons learned in SOIL and the change in the timeline of the Straight A Round 2 grants, the

second cohort was brought on board by first meeting cohort 1 and having a chance to observe

what had gone before them as well as question and gain insight through the regularly scheduled

Virtual Brainstorms. Initial charrettes were able to take place in the fall. Also in the second round,

the timing of the online professional development was moved forward to help prepare the teachers

well in advance for the summer immersion programs.

By adjusting the schedule in response to lessons learned and the 18 month grant period, Cohort 2

was better prepared for the planning aspect of the program and better prepared to reach into the

community for partners in their endeavor. Reaching into the community was a major goal of

Growing SOIL and the project team could see the difference between the two cohorts by adding

the additional 6 months and adjusting the planning to emphasize leveraging funding thorugh good

planning.

28


Benches for meeting area, pond reclamation • new trail around outdoor space • maple syrup collection • geocaching • creating a video to market SOILab to other schools and community • new shelter house classroom • survey of property, forestry plan

Fairfield Union participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. 28 students and 4 teachers particpated in the Bridge immersion program at Hocking College in 2015.

Teacher are using TPBL modules for implementation of language arts activities. An outdoor cart is used with a variety of small equipment items such as magnifiers and measurement devices.

Most grade levels use space for some form of instruction.

Two elementary schools that serve the middle school are planning field trips to the site.

Fairfield Union Middle & High Schools

Constraints : • Sharing ideas among enthusiastic staff that does not have staff meetings.

Proposed Solutions: • Suggested to focus once a month at a team meeting on sharing lab usage ideas and other

resources.

29

Design team attended January, February and March Planning workshops presenting their plan in March 2015

Creating “prairie space” • signage for flora within designated prairie space • benches in prairie space to encourage small groups • a biodiversity database • weather station

Fairfield Union participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. 9 students and 1 teacher particpated in the Bridge immersion program at Hocking College in 2015.

Lab comprised of several small projects, involving four staff members who have committed to the outdoor learning areas..

The several small projects are works in progress with labor for some projects still being arranged, and with praire needing to be planted for the spring.

N/A

Constraints:

• Several projects need to be completed to finish outdoor lab. Teachers have expressed interest in using lab, but little evidence that they are.

Proposed Solutions: • Working out labor to finish projects, and training for teachers to understand best how to

use SOIL lab.

Federal Hocking Middle & High Schools

30


Water feature in courtyard providing access for all students • refurbishing the greenhouse • indoor greenhouse • picnic table space • herb gardens to augment culinary studies • reclamation of pond •

Lancaster participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June.

Pond area and seating area have been greatly utilized by science classes, including solar collector projects. Art classes conducted in courtyard.

Lab receives excellent use.

Lab is used well through the building and is growing into more content areas.

Lancaster High School

31


New outdoor covered learning space • reclamation of wetland drainage • weather station

Millersport participated in P3 online professional develoment in May and built TPBL modules in June. 25 students and 1 teacher particpated in the Bridge immersion program at Hocking College in 2015.

The outdoor pavillion has been constructed but there is no seating.

There has been little to no usage of the pavillion since there is no seating.

None

.

Millersport High School

Constraints • The pavilion is not used due to lack of seats without clear reason for elimination of benches

from the project Proposed

• Donations or other funding to build benches and teacher development for increased use of the lab

32

Cohort 2 Highlights from Quarterly Reports

October 30th, 2014 Quarterly Report Fairfield Union Fairfield Union hosted an initial site visit on Wednesday, October 23rd. The school already uses the outdoors for some instructional purposes and is excited to expand and improve its use. The school is looking to enhance three main areas: a courtyard area in the middle school building, a wetland located between the middle school and high school buildings and an already existing land lab in great need of upgrades and repair. The school already has plans to reach out to a few community businesses to ask for in-kind donations as well as other services and expertise. The school planning team will meet again before the next SOIL meeting in January.

Lancaster City Schools Lancaster High School hosted a site visit on October 22nd. The school had a wide range of staff participate from administration, curriculum coordinators to teachers. The school is looking to transform three main areas on the school site. The first is a pond area about 300yards in front of the school building, could be used for multiple research

projects as well as general nature observation. The second area is a courtyard space that already contains a greenhouse that is mostly used for storage. The teachers are interested in reclaiming the courtyard space but would have to make some decisions about the green house in terms of rehab or demolition. Lastly, there is a small stream located on site. The art teacher would like to create a sculpture garden outside as well as engage the

industrial arts teachers in building seating near the stream.

33

July 30th, 2015 Quarterly Report Spring Photo Album Highlights of SOILabs

Federal Hocking Hoop House under construction

Lancaster The existing pond on Lancaster campus that students plan to

reclaim in the coming semester.

Fairfield Union Fairfield Union has an ambitious SOILab program that involves every grade k-‐12

34

1

Recognized Barriers & Potential Solutions

Funded initially in January 2014 and then again in fall 2015, SOIL and Growing SOIL have

successfully used innovative, fast paced facilitation and STEM design to deliver robust professional

development for administrators and teachers, engaging immersion programs that model good

STEM problem-based learning, and ongoing support to assist in the continued organic growth of

STEM Outdoor Innovation labs across Ohio. By participating in both rounds of the Straight A

program, SOIL was able to grow innovation and learn to grow communication and collaboration

between schools and communities.

Through the internal evaluation or knowledge capture we were able to recognize internal and

external barriers. Through modification Growing SOIL was able to address internal issues. One of

the barriers identified by teachers and administrators was the scheduling of the online professional

development. Thus we modified the timeline introducing Cohort 2 to the planning process and P3

in the fall of 2014, rather than waiting for the spring as the project did with Cohort 1. This

modification worked better for participation and reinforced the belief that stakeholder voices were

heard and acted upon.

Faculty Retention in SOILAB teams

Cohort 1 SOILabs Principal Lead Teacher Partner Teacher

Percentage still in place

Baldwin Jr High School NO NO NO 0

Biomed STEM HS YES* YES YES 100

eSTEM HS YES YES — 66

Metro MS YES NO NO 33

Metro HS YES YES NO 66

National Inventors Hall of Fame MS NO NO YES 33

Starling MS YES YES — 66

West HS NO YES — 33

Westmoor MS YES NO NO 33

*,YES,represents,those,team,members,s8ll,at,SOILab,school

�1

Table 9

35

2

Some barriers were combined internal and external situations. Within Growing SOIL stakeholders

noted that with the initiation of PARCC testing, holding the Bridge immersion programs in the

fourth quarter during the school year was problematic. The PARCC testing was an external barrier

that the SOIL project team attempted to ameliorate by moving the Bridge immersion programs to

June to accommodate the testing period. This modification was not successful. After moving the

programs teachers complained that the rescheduled programs fell after the school year during their

vacation. They were uninclined to participate and thus did not market the programs for their

students. In our quarterly report for July we recommended that future marketing directly target the

parents through PTOs and other public announcement venues.

The remaining barriers fell directly in the External environment outside of the project team’s control

and continue to affect the success of the program. One of these potential threats is the retention

of administrators and teachers at the different schools. Table 9 reflects that only 3 of the 9 schools

(33%) have over half of the original faculty still in place. Only one school still has all of the original

team. This problem is amplified when we compare participation to retention. Middle schools had

better participation overall across the two years of immersion programs, 172 MS/110 HS, yet the

programs are more vulnerable to teachers movement out of the school and thus the curtailment of

the program, unless the administration of a school continues to push the program. This is evident

at Baldwin Rd. Junior High School where the administration’s excitement about the opportunities

has driven the ongoing development despite the lack of teacher retention.

Finally, the dilema of how to expand participation beyond the initial schools partnering in the grant

due to interpretation of the Financial Impact Tables (FIT) hampered reaching beyond the

immediate project. Schools not listed in the grant were turned away from participation in the

Bridge Immersion programs because of the required financial reporting within FIT. Thus the pre-

paid seats in the June programs went unfilled. This change from Cohort 1 in SOIL reduced the

bridge program participation from 193/200 to 89/200, almost halving the participation in Growing

SOIL.

Through the recognition of barriers, the SOIL project team was able to change some timeing and

types of deliverables to achieve the project’s goals and outcome, as well as ameliorate other

external barriers that affected the project but could not be completely overcome. The following

recommendations are for the continued organic growth of SOIL.

36

1

Recommendations Each quarter the SOIL project team created a set of recommendations to help maneuver the

project across the dynamic landscape of planning, building and modifying the SOILabs. Also each

quarter during Growing SOIL the project team received a set of recommendations from the

external evaluator to assist in the modifications needed to achieve maximum success in SOIL. The

following are recommendations, both internal and external made during the course of Growing

SOIL and the solutions that were proposed for future and implemented to increase the

opportunities and success of Growing SOIL.

1. Constraint: Although written, verbal, and personal visits were made to each of the Cohort 2

schools to recruit teachers and students for the Bridge Programs at Hocking, this was not as

successful as the first year. Cohort 1 schools, however, were eager to participate in the

unexpected opportunity of a second year Bridge Program and either sent students or

invited their buddy school to send students. Knowledge Capture noted that teachers from

Cohort 2 wanted to be more involved with recruitment now that they know what to expect.

In addition, not being able to reach beyond the direct participants in the project hindered

open recruitment.

Recommendation: Put more energy into directly appealing to parents through

established advertisements and media and leverage teachers who have already participated

in a bridge program hybrid. Once the schools within the project have been recruited and

the vacancies identified, schools outside the project be given the opportunity to participate.

By doing this, the project will help grow the endeavor.

2. Constraint: Running the field programs after the end of the academic school year impacted

teacher participation.

Recommendation: A possible solution is to target specific month, some within the

traditional school year and some not to attract the maximum number of teachers. For

example some of the programs might run in October and some in June. Thus schools with

the ability to afford substitutes could send teachers and students during the school year

while others could take advantage of the summer months.

3. Constraint: Although the Virtual Brainstorms are widely advertised only a few SOILab teams

take advantage of them. It is important to note that these are the same schools who took

full advantage of the Bridge Programs.

Recommendation: Along with the schedule of Virtual Brainstorms advertise guest

speakers who address various aspects of the SOILabs in an effort to both attract participants

37

2

and continue to encourage widespread use of the labs as well as continued development of

new TPBL modules. The Virtual Brainstorms can also be used to continue to promote the

2016 Summer experience and ongoing professional development available through P3.

4. Constraint: Without falling victim to the “blame game” there is a perception gap between what

is desired by teachers for improved educational environments across the academic year and

what is required to accomplish the aspiration.

Recommendation: Promote low risk participation in immersive learning for teachers as a

means to demonstrate how to engage students in learning while problem-solving as a more

common form of professional development. This delivery and instructional strategy negates

the perception that a concept must be delivered through lecture before it can be applied.

By immersing teachers in this low risk “ride along” the aspiration becomes attainable

producing improved educational environments and students with the skills needed to

become critical thinkers, collaborators, and communicators.

The external evaluation recommendations were as follows.

1. Harness student interest through formal and informal opportunites to interact with the

individual SOILabs.

Response: A number of schools began running design challenges and projects that

engaged students and helped market the upcoming summer bridge programs. These

schools were consistently more engaged across all facets of the project.

2. Increase administrator support to forster awarenewss and recruit community partners.

Reponse: Regular discussions at the Virtual Brainstorm and direct emails were sent out to

administrators but need more interaction between the Project Lead Agency and districts to

reinforce the importance of the project design, implementation, and community

participation. Without the Lead Agency commitment, participating districts do not perceive

the importance of full participation.

3. Create new tools and reporting timelines to help districts anticipate data needed to

communicate both programmatic and fiscal information.

Response: Tools for communication exist at the programmatic level but did not appear to

be carried through to the Lead Agency level. Basecamp, Virtual Brainstorms, regular

meetings and presentations, and site visits encouraged communication between the SOIL

project team and the SOILab teams but more can and should be done to take that

communication throughout the vertical rise of the organizational hierarchy.

4. Design templates to help participating schools track number of direct impact.

Response: A questionnaire has been developed by the Fairfield ESC to assist schools in

38

3

continuing to track impact quantitatively through the foreseeable future. Qualitative impact

will be more difficult to quantify without continued interaction at the levels only seen during

the project.

Continued growth of SOIL is expected and potentially quantifiable across specific aspects of

implementation – use of SOILabs, use of modules, changes in critical thinking and problem solving

among students attending schools with SOILab or buddy schools. However, many of the future

outcomes cannot be predicted due to the organic nature of the growth. For example, the

partnership that is developing between Metro Early College High School and the food science

company Coalesceence™ where students are studying the herbs grown in the SOILabs in terms of

food science and restaurant procurement. Yes, the growing number of community partners can be

quantified but the impact on education and where these partnerships take the school’s learning

labs cannot.

Conclusion

The PAST Foundation is grateful for the opportunity to help establish two prototyping

environmental field stations that have the potential to continue to provide schools and teachers

with dynamic learning programs that can be taken back to home SOILabs and shared out with

buddy schools. We fully recognize that through the generous support of the Straight A Funds,

PAST was able to realize the growth of STEM learning throughout Ohio, engaging teachers in new

instructional strategies and ways to deliver relevant and rigorous learning. It is vitally important to

the continued transformation of learning in Ohio that opportunities like Straight A provide

education and community the opportunity to come together and create innovative pathways of

learning. In a time of dynamically changing educational landscapes,changemaker opportunities to

innovate pay forward exponentially.

By enabling SOIL to grow, the project was able to take advantage of “lessons learned” and the

longer timeline. In the second year Cohort 2 focused on leveraging funding and in Fairfield Union

and Millersport both SOILabs expanded their efforts substantially through community participation.

National Inventors Hall of Fame Middle School from Cohort 1 also used the second year to expand

their SOILab partnering with the EPA and adding a state of the art weather station to their lab. In

all instances, the SOILab teams fully grasped the importance of sustainability as seen in their FIT

reports. By making sure their plans included all the tools they would need and by partnering with

community organizations the SOILabs are amazingly self sufficient. Seed companies and the Ohio

Department of Natural Resources are providing seeds to a number of the labs. Shared resources

such as probes and weather stations are enabling the programs to continue to grow into the future.

39

4

Although there are identified constraints, SOIL appears to be quite healthy in the majority of sites

and will continue to serve the students in and around all 15 of the anchor SOILabs for years to

come. It is our hope that the same will be true for the prototyping field stations. In the final survey

of the anchor SOILab schools, the positive response to continuing to take advantage of the

immersive experiences was unanimous.

In conclusion, learning how to fully take advantage of all space in the quest to expand learning for

today’s student is vitally important to schools, teachers, students and community.

• Providing opportunities that enable and empower both students and teachers in the

transformation of their own teaching and learning is critical to accelerating the transition to

powerful instructional strategies and 21st century skills.

• Providing opportunities that have well articulated structure and opportunities for organic

growth that resonates with individual communities is crucial to success.

• Providing the tools to sustain and grow programs is fundamental to changing the view and implementation of state and federal funding.

SOIL and Growing SOIL provided these mechanisms, processes, and tools.

40

Growing SOIL Final Report Appendix Site Visit Forms- Cohort 1

• Baldwin Road Jr. High School • eSTEM High School • Metro Early College Middle School & High School • Starling Middle School • Westmoor Middle School

Site Visit Forms- Cohort 2

• Fairfield Union Middle School & High School • Lancaster High School • Millersport High School

Agendas/Sign In Sheets

• Quarterly TPBL Planning PD October 2nd Agenda • Quarterly TPBL Planning PD October 2nd Sign in Sheet

41

Baldwin Road Junior HighSep 24, 2015 Site Visit

Final Build Site Visit School: Baldwin Road Junior High

Address: Reynoldsburg, OH

Date: 9/24/2015

Committee Members & Community Partners Present:Seth Dunn - new SOIL coordinatorChelle Watts - Principal

1. Is there STEM Outdoor Innovation Lab complete? Why or why not?Phase 1 is complete. BRJH is expanding the SOIL-based concept into the community and creating inviting space for the community to come to BRJH (see below).2. How many staff members participated in the planning and build of the Outdoor Lab? What was their level of involvement?All in all, there were eleven staff members associated with the SOIL development and implementation. Three or four were "on point", while others served as helpers. The time devoted to SOIL was volunteer and not financially compensated, indicating the true commitment these 3. Are there any future additions planned for the lab?BRJH plans several expansions. Roughly $500 worth of treated 2x12 boards were donated to the school from T3 Lumber and these will be used in the construction of several raised beds. Presently, much of the SOIL facility is located in a small courtyard space enclosed by the school structure. Outside of the structure are several "mobile beds"--small, wading pools made into planting beds. Baldwin plans to replace or supplement these with raised beds for community use.They are also interested in developing an aquaponics system.4. Additional staff development needs:Associated with their plans for community gardens, Baldwin Road staff want to understand what is necessary to create and sustain a safe, well-maintained and inviting garden to be used by the community.They also recognize that they lack the insight needed to develop and maintain an aquaponics system and would like some guidance in this area of expertise.5. Notes and observations: BRJH has actually reached beyond its own boundaries and has solicited support from Blacklick Plaza (Reynoldsburg) and from the city of Reysnoldburg itself, via the mayor. Students are involved in the beautification of Blacklick Plaza and are implementing raised flower beds.A SOIL Club exists at the school with Seth Dunn as its sponsor/leader and 10-20 students participating. Seth indicates that the club is growing.

6. Attachments:

1

42


Mobile Garden Beds

Courtyard SOIL Facility (Note "natural seating" and elevated plant bed)

2

43


Student Experiments -- Exploring Natural Herbicides (left) and Fabrication of Composting Bin (right)

Koi Pond

3

44


"The Bog", a favorite and serene place for students to do quiet work

4

45

Final&Build&Site&Visit&School:&eSTEM&High&School

Address:&8579&Summit&Road,&Reynoldsburg,&OH&43068

Date:&9/25/2015

Committee&Members&&&Community&Partners&Present:Jim&Bruner&&&Calvin&Mires&from&The&PAST&Foundation,&Madeline&Schultz,&eSTEM&Chemistry&Teacher,&and&Summit&Elemenrary&was&listed&as&a&community&partner,&but&representatives&from&this&&group&wasn't&present.

1.&Is&there&STEM&Outdoor&Innovation&Lab&complete?&&Why&or&why&not?&Yes.The&Growing&SOIL&facility&was&well]maintained&and&in&obvious&use,&next&to&Summit&Elementary.&The&original&Round&One&SOIL&facility&was&in&significant&disuse&and&ill&repair.&There&was&no&sense&of&pride&or&interest&in&either&SOIL&facility&on&the&part&of&Ms&Schultz.&It&was&a&pleasant&surprise&to&hear&the&Summit&principal&on&the&PA&system&refer&to&the&students&of&SummitElementary&as&"Children&of&the&Wetlands"2.&how&many&staff&members&participated&in&the&planning&and&build&of&the&Outdoor&Lab?&What&was&their&level&of&involvement?&The&level&of&engagement&on&the&part&of&eSTEM&was&negligible&]&again,&distance&from&the&school&was&cited&as&a&main&reason.&There&was&some&evidence&that&the&SOIL&path&and&observation&deck&were&in&limited&use,&but&it&was&not&clear&if&this&was&by&High&School&or&Elementary&students.&The&Elemntary&School&Butterfly&garden&was&well]maintained&and&in&obvious&use.3.&Are&there&any&future&additions&planned&for&the&lab?&No.&There&was&no&stated&plans&for&expansion&or&growth.&I&cited&the&existence&of&a&well]designed&and&well]maintained&greenhouse&and&earth&science/biology&greenhouse&within&the&school&premises.&Indeed,&there&was&very&little&evidence&that&the&Nature&center&(aka&Yurts)&were&even&in&use,&although&well]maintained.

4.&Additional&staff&development&needs:&PD&for&staff&to&integrate&the&wetlands&biology&into&their&curriculum.

5.&Notes&and&observations:&It&was&obvious&there&was&a&significant&disconnect&from&the&SLOIL&and&Growing&SOIL&facility&on&the&part&of&eSTEM&]&although&the&Summit&Elemntary&School&was&obviously&still&engaged.

46

Metro Middle and High SchoolSep 24, 2015 Site Visit

Final Build Site Visit School: Metro Middle and High School

Address: Columbus, OH

Date: 9/24/2015

Committee Members & Community Partners Present:Andrew Bruening - SOIL coordinator1. Is there STEM Outdoor Innovation Lab complete? Why or why not?SOIL is not complete. Aquaponics system only partially assembled and not operational. OSU students enlisted to construct and initiate system apparently have fulfilled their academic requirements and have left the project. Other than two raised beds that appear to be actively tended, there is little evidence that a SOIL facility exists at Metro School.2. How many staff members participated in the planning and build of the Outdoor Lab? What was their level of involvement?There were initially approximately ten staff members associated with the SOIL program, but all except Andrew Bruening have left for other schools. Dorothy Sutton is currently using the raised beds as part of a horticulture curriculum.3. Are there any future additions planned for the lab?Not at this time. Andrew is the only SOIL participant at Metro and his time is very limited over the next year, given his commitments to Metro and The PAST Foundation.4. Additional staff development needs:Need to get teachers engaged with the SOIL facility, which has not happened to date. Ten new teachers are not aware of the SOIL facility.5. Notes and observations: There is little evidence that SOIL is active at Metro. Considering that nearly $29000 has been spent over the last two years on this facility, the lack of a facility and teacher engagement is a huge (and costly) disappointment. Given that Andrew is the only SOIL participant at this time and his availability is extremely limited, there currently is no champion for SOIL. Hence, it is quite likely 6. Attachments:

1

48


Raised Garden Beds -- Vegetables (left) and Flowers (right)

Assembled Plumbing of Aquaponics System (currently be used to hold classroom notes)

2

49


Additional Parts to be Assembled to the Aquaponics System

3

50

Starling School

Sep 24, 2015 Site Visit

Final Build Site Visit

School: Starling K-8 School

Address: Columbus, OH

Date: 9/24/2015

Committee Members & Community Partners Present:

Andrew Bloom - SOIL Coordinator

1. Is there STEM Outdoor Innovation Lab complete? Why or why not?

Yes, definitely. The vision of creating an inviting and often utilized outdoor space for students and

teachers has been fulfilled. There have been some false starts, such as the establishment of a short

walking path and a "Physics Area" that have not been utilized. However, picnic tables, flower beds

and surrounding area have been popular and regularly used.

2. How many staff members participated in the planning and build of the Outdoor Lab? What was

their level of involvement?

In addition to Andrew Bloom, two other teachers helped with this project. The Outdoor Club at

Starling also provided manpower to complete the project.

3. Are there any future additions planned for the lab?

Starling would like to add a butterfly garden and are working with Robin Dugan of COSI. The

Outdoor Club also has plans to improve the area.

4. Additional staff development needs:

Adoption of the space by the students for lunch and reading has been quick. A few of the teachers

have realized the value of the SOIL and have utilized it as an extension of their classroom, but

Andrew would like to see a broader and more coordinated use by all the grades.

5. Notes and observations:

There seems to be pride among the students, staff and surrounding community for the SOIL facility,

and many people have contributed their time in planting and maintaining the garden beds. Though

some of the beds needed to be rebuilt, it was obvious that both vegetables and flowers had be

cultivated in these beds.

6. Attachments:

1

51

Starling SchoolSep 24, 2015 Site Visit

The Addition of Picnic Tables Increased the Utility of this SOIL

One of Several Raised Plant Beds

2

52

Final&Build&Site&Visit&

School:&Westmoor&Middle&School

Address:&3001&Valleyview&Dr,&Columbus,&OH&43204

Date:&9/25/2015

Committee&Members&&&Community&Partners&Present:Jim&Bruner&&&Calvin&Mires&from&The&PAST&

Foundation,&Paul&Bailey,&Principal,&Westmoor&Middle&School.&The&school&listed&Kemba&Financial&

Credit&Union&as&a&community&partner,&as&well&as&Westmoor&Elrmentary,&but&representatives&from&

neither&of&these&groups&were&present.1.&Is&there&STEM&Outdoor&Innovation&Lab&complete?&&Why&or&why&not?&Yes.The&SOIL&facility&was&wellX

maintained&and&in&obvious&use.&There&was&a&palpable&sense&of&pride&on&the&part&of&Paul&Bailey.

2.&how&many&staff&members&participated&in&the&planning&and&build&of&the&Outdoor&Lab?&What&was&

their&level&of&involvement?&Paul&Bailey&stated&that&on&average&6X7&teachers&and&their&classes&use&the&

SOIL&facility.&These&teachers&include&math,&science&and&ELA&teachers.&It&was&obvious&upon&inspection&

that&the&SOIL&facility&was&wellXused.

3.&Are&there&any&future&additions&planned&for&the&lab?&Yes.&Paul&Bailey&stated&several&times&that&

expansion&of&the&SOIL&facility&cannot&go&on&without&steps&to&secure&the&roof&from&access&by&students&

and&theft/vandals.

4.&Additional&staff&development&needs:&PD&for&staff&to&integrate&the&teachers&from&Westmoor&

Elementary&school&into&their&curriculum.

5.&Notes&and&observations:&It&was&pleasing&seeing&the&pride&the&principal,&the&school,&the&students,&

and&the&maintenance&staff&take&in&the&space.&The&Growing&SOIL&additions&were&quite&striking&and&

were&all&accounted&for.

6.&Attachments:&

53

TPBL%Implementation%Site%Visit%School:Fairfield%Union

Address:

Date:%September%25,%2015

Committee%Members%&%Community%Partners%Present:Liz%HenwoodRachel%Thomas

1.%How%has%the%lab%been%used?1.%Much%of%the%focus%currently%is%on%getting%the%outdoor%land%lab%completed%at%the%back%of%the%property.%Teachers%are%using%outdoor%space%around%the%school%for%language%arts%activities,%and%general%change%of%pace.%An%outdoor%learning%cart%that%is%loaded%with%a%variety%of%small%equipment%items%such%as%magnifiers%and%measurement%devices%is%just%now%being%put%into%service.%2.%What%grades%have%utilized%the%Outdoor%Lab?%Have%any%other%schools%used%your%Outdoor%Lab?2.%Most%grade%levels%are%going%outside%for%some%form%of%instruction%or%outdoor%classroom%utilization.%%The%courtyard%area%receives%regular%usage.%The%two%elementary%schools%that%serve%the%middle%school%are%also%planning%field%trips%to%the%site.%%

3.%Have%teachers%used%the%TPBL%modules%developed%in%Spring%2015?%Why%or%why%not?%%Rachel%has%definitely%used%TPBL%and%mentioned%that%several%other%teachers%have%also.%

4.%Additional%staff%development%needs:Now%that%site%is%in%place,%there%is%a%need%for%specific%activities%and%the%sharing%of%ideas%among%staff.%They%do%not%have%full%staff%meetings,%but%do%meet%as%grade%level%teams.%I%suggested%that%they%focus%perhaps%once%a%month%at%a%team%meeting%on%sharing%lab%usage%ideas%as%well%as%resources%that%other%content%areas%might%be%able%to%use.%

55

5.%Notes%and%observations:%Much%of%the%focus%of%this%school%has%been%on%the%reviving%of%an%existing%large%wooded%outdoor%learning%area%with%two%ponds%and%a%historic%covered%bridge.%The%area%had%been%heavily%used%many%years%ago%as%an%outdoor%education%land%laboratory.%During%the%last%year%there%has%evolved%tremendous%community%interest%in%revitalizing%this%area.%The%result%has%been%a%transformation%into%a%setting%that%is%almost%parkYlike.%It%is%a%magnificent%outdoor%learning%area.%A%serious%concern,%however,%is%the%walking%distance%from%the%school.%Given%that%the%school%has%only%45%minute%periods,%it%will%be%difficult%to%make%visits%to%the%site%frequently.%%Work%on%this%area%has%consumed%much%of%the%work%of%the%SOIL%planning%committee.The%funding%has%provided%two%heavy%duty%outdoor%learning%carts%that%are%stocked%with%equipment%to%use%for%field%work.%These,%hopefully%will%encourage%usage%around%the%periphery%of%the%building.6.%Attachments:%

56

TPBL%Implementation%Site%Visit%

School:%Lancaster%High%School%

Address:

Date:%9/25/2015

Committee%Members%&%Community%Partners%Present:Nathan%ConradMont%GossShannon%Fish

1.%How%has%the%lab%been%used?Lab%is%receiving%excellent%usage.%The%pond%area%and%seating%has%been%greatly%utilized%by%sicence%classes.%%The%environmental%science%classes%have%recently%done%solar%collector%projects%on%the%site.%The%art%instructor%continues%to%have%her%students%work%in%the%courtyard%area.

2.%What%grades%have%utilized%the%Outdoor%Lab?%Have%any%other%schools%used%your%Outdoor%Lab?Several%teachers%in%the%building%are%using%the%site%for%outdoor%learning%activities.%The%FFA%instructor%has%taken%on%the%project%of%repurposing%the%greenhouse%in%the%courtyard%area.%A%wonderful%seating%area%has%been%placed%at%the%front%of%the%building%to%facilitate%the%use%of%the%lawn%area%for%teaching.

3.%Have%teachers%used%the%TPBL%modules%developed%in%Spring%2015?%Why%or%why%not?%%The%environmental%science%teacher%is%a%strong%TPBL%advocate.%The%comment%was%made%that%problem%based%learning%is%being%done%throughout%the%building.

4.%Additional%staff%development%needs:The%principal%feels%that%there%is%a%definite%need%to%share%outdoor%learning%practices%building%Xwide.%He%feels%that%there%now%is%a%need%to%show%examples%of%how%outdoor%activities%can%be%incorporated%into%a%variety%of%content%areas.%

57

5.Notes%and%observationsThis%school%has%implemented%the%SOIL%Project%very%effectively.%The%administrator%has%a%great%enthusiasm%for%the%project%and%is%very%proud%of%the%work%that%his%staff%has%done.%The%outdoor%teaching%meeting%areas%have%been%beautifully%done%utilizing%stone%foundation%blocks%from%the%old%high%school%building.%The%teachers%that%I%spoke%with%were%very%enthusiastic%and%were%eager%to%encourage%others%to%be%more%invovled%in%outdoor%learning%also.

6.%Attachments:%

58

TPBL%Implementation%Site%Visit%

School:%Millersport

Address:

Date:%9/25/2015

Committee%Members%&%Community%Partners%Present:

Jeff%Stought

1.%How%has%the%lab%been%used?

The%only%item%that%has%been%completed%is%the%outdoor%pavilion%that%is%near%the%school%nd%parking%lot.%

However,%there%is%no%seating%in%the%pavilion.%

2.%What%grades%have%utilized%the%Outdoor%Lab?%Have%any%other%schools%used%your%Outdoor%Lab?

2.%The%principal%stated%that%there%has%been%little%or%no%usage%of%the%pavilion%since%there%is%no%seating.%%

3.%Have%teachers%used%the%TPBL%modules%developed%in%Spring%2015?%Why%or%why%not?%%

No%reference%was%made%at%all%to%TPBL.

4.%Additional%staff%development%needs:

Perhaps%ideas%sfor%specidic%outdoor%activities%would%be%useful.

5.%Notes%and%observations:%

Unfortunately%the%result%has%only%been%an%empty%shell%of%a%pavilion.%I%discussed%with%the%principal%

the%idea%of%going%to%a%retailer%such%as%Lowe’s%to%seek%a%grant%or%donation%of%product%in%order%to%get%

benches%for%the%pavilion.%I’m%sure%that%teachers%would%use%the%pavilion%if%it%had%seating—it%is%near%a%

small%wetland,%and%is%right%outside%of%the%science%wing%of%the%school.%It%was%not%clear%why%the%

benches%were%eliminated%from%the%project—supposedly%several%expected%donations%did%not%come%

through%and%the%full%amount%of%the%grant%went%to%construction.%

59

!

!!

TPBL!Quarterly!Planning!!Professional!Development!

Agenda!for!Fairfield!County!ESC!October!2nd,!2015!

!9:00AMI9:15AM:!Welcome!and!Introductions!!!9:15AMI10:15AM:!Introducing!the!Design!Cycle!!10:15AMI12:00PM:!Developing!a!Back!map!and!designing!problems!projects!products!for!your!students.!!12:00PMI12:15PM:!Sharing!your!big!ideas!and!back!map!work.!!12:15PMI1:00PM:!Lunch!on!your!own!!1:00PMI1:45PM:!Design!2!week!project!plans!and!project!management!in!the!classroom.!!1:45PM!–!2:45PM:!Developing!Project!Snapshots!and!aligning!standards.!!!2:45PMI!3:00PM:!Share!out!and!closing!comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !

60

GROWING SOIL FORMATIVE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT During the 2014-15 academic year, The PAST Foundation Knowledge Capture (KC) Program conducted formative evaluation of the implementation process for (15) schools participating in the Growing SOIL Project during the period beginning August 2014 through June 2015, funded by a Straight A Grant. This report provides a summary evaluation for Cohort 1 schools (n=9), and Cohort 2 schools (n=6). Formative evaluation has been reported on a quarterly basis (October 30, 2014, and January 30, April 30, and July 30, 2015). This report constitutes the final report of year 1 implementation for Growing SOIL. The report provides a summary view of all evaluation activities conducted over the 2014-15 academic year, as well as a final analysis of pre- and post-data gathered during year 1 of the project. The KC Program involves an iterative approach to documenting projected-related professional development (PD) as well as workshops, planning sessions, and related activities, working with the PAST Implementation Team to inform real time modification of implementation design. The KC Program employed a range of methods that include both qualitative and quantitative data collection to identify unique dimensions of the implementation process and experience across the (15) individual schools. The evaluation design also involved identifying key opportunities to gather data that demonstrates and defines important milestones and benchmarks of project implementation in ways that could better support project participants. Evaluation of implementation strategies, including particular challenges encountered and achievements gained, helps to identify and maximize unanticipated beneficial outcomes for teachers and students. Quarterly reports issued in October 2014, January, April and July 2015 provided detailed progress reports including evaluation based on observation of project planning activities, both on-site, and in professional development settings. Additionally, focus groups and pre- and post-surveys were also conducted with both

62

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 team members. See the Appendix to this report, Table A: Chronology of Knowledge Capture Activities 2014 - 2015.

This final report is organized to provide a summary overview of evaluation activities

conducted during the year, followed by discussion of key issues identified during

successive phases of work conducted by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.

FORMATIVE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

Table 1: Knowledge Capture Formative Evaluation presents an overview of research

activities including a brief description of the process involved, type of analysis and

reporting process.

TABLE 1: Knowledge Capture Growing SOIL Formative Evaluation Methods

Research Activity

Process Conducted by Evaluation Team Evaluation Product

Observation of Growing SOIL Project Activities

Observe school team interaction, planning sessions, site tours, and presentations; participate in event debrief with the PAST PAST Implementation Team.

Bullet Point Report providing summary of emerging themes; report distributed to the PAST Implementation Team to inform implementation strategies.

Growing SOIL Team Focus Groups

Conduct small group discussion with Cohort 1 teachers regarding school design for building engagement strategies within the school and with community partners; identify challenges, benefits, and gains experienced during different phases of project implementation with both Cohorts 1 and 2; explore Hocking Field School experience with Cohort 2 teachers.

Qualitative analysis to identify challenges and barriers to attaining project goals; narrative analysis submitted in quarterly grant reports.

Growing SOIL Pre- and Post- Surveys

Design and administer online survey for individual team members to give feedback on implementation components and describe perceptions of program success, challenges, and ideas about sustaining the project into the future.

Qualitative and quantitative analysis submitted with quarterly grant reports.

Formative Evaluation Monthly Meetings

Monthly Implementation Team meetings to coordinate modifications to implementation schedules; review logistics of evaluation team involvement in project implementation activities; review interim stages of analysis of qualitative and quantitative data to inform implementation strategies; planning and review of quarterly report preparation (October 2014 and January, April, and July 2015).

1 – 1.5 hr. monthly meetings held at the PAST Foundation Office coordinated and conducted by Knowledge Capture.

These four types of evaluation activities are further described in the following section,

characterizing methods and purpose of each type of activity. Figure 1, Knowledge

Capture Formative Evaluation for the Straight A Grant Program, was developed for to

63

!

PA

ST F

OU

ND

ATI

ON

– K

NO

WLE

DG

E C

AP

TUR

E (K

C)

PR

OG

RA

M

The

PA

ST F

OU

ND

ATI

ON

wo

rks

wit

h sc

hoo

ls a

nd d

istr

icts

to

sup

po

rt s

cho

ol t

rans

form

atio

n in

a r

ang

e o

f w

ays.

A k

ey c

om

po

nent

of

the

wo

rk is

co

nduc

ted

by

the

Kno

wle

dg

e C

aptu

re t

eam

, who

do

cum

ent

the

uniq

ue c

halle

nges

and

suc

cess

es o

f p

rog

ram

imp

lem

enta

tio

n. T

he K

C t

eam

wo

rks

wit

h ed

ucat

ors

wit

hin

scho

ols

fro

m d

istr

ict-

leve

l ad

min

istr

atio

n to

the

cla

ssro

om

. K

C p

rovi

des

insi

ght

ab

out

imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

roce

sses

fro

m t

he e

xper

ienc

e o

f p

rog

ram

par

tici

pan

ts.

KC

dat

a su

pp

ort

s ef

fect

ive

mo

del

s o

f ch

ang

e fo

r us

e w

ithi

n th

e ed

ucat

iona

l sys

tem

.

THE

KN

OW

LED

GE

C

AP

TUR

E P

RO

GR

AM

Task

ed w

ith s

uppo

rtin

g

impl

emen

tatio

n

FAIR

FIEL

D E

DU

CA

TIO

N

SERV

ICE

CEN

TER

STRA

IGH

T A

GRA

NTS

GRO

WIN

G S

OIL

FAST

FO

RWA

RD

M

ATH

MA

TTER

S

Kno

wle

dg

e C

aptu

re (K

C) F

ield

Ob

serv

atio

ns

The

field

tea

m w

ill c

ond

uct

obse

rvat

ion

of in

itial

mee

ting

s, w

orks

hop

s an

d t

rain

ing

ses

sion

s he

ld d

urin

g fa

ll 20

14 fo

r al

l thr

ee p

roje

cts.

Thr

oug

h ob

serv

atio

n of

the

imp

lem

enta

tion

pro

cess

, the

KC

tea

m w

ill p

rovi

de

imp

orta

nt fe

edb

ack

to t

he im

ple

men

tatio

n te

am a

s w

ork

is

und

erw

ay. T

his

feed

bac

k id

entif

ies

effe

ctiv

e p

roce

sses

to

adva

nce

imp

lem

enta

tion

that

mee

ts

all a

spec

ts o

f pro

gra

m g

oals

. Fee

db

ack

emp

ower

s m

odifi

catio

n to

bet

ter m

eet t

he n

eed

s of

in

div

idua

l sch

ools

or

dis

tric

ts in

ach

ievi

ng s

trat

egic

out

com

es t

hat

fully

max

imiz

e th

e su

cces

s of

the

STR

AIG

HT

A G

rant

Pro

gra

m.

Kno

wle

dg

e C

aptu

re (K

C) I

nter

view

s, F

ocus

Gro

ups

and

Sur

veys

A

sses

sing

eff

ectiv

enes

s of

eac

h g

rant

’s im

ple

men

tatio

n d

esig

n, t

he K

C t

eam

will

con

duc

t fo

cus

gro

ups

and

sur

veys

with

pro

ject

tea

ms

at s

trat

egic

poi

nts

dur

ing

the

2014

-15

acad

emic

ye

ar.

Ad

diti

ona

lly, o

ne-o

n-on

e in

terv

iew

s m

ay b

e co

nduc

ted

with

ad

min

istr

ator

s an

d o

ther

s fr

om w

ithin

the

dis

tric

t to

gai

n in

sig

ht o

n fir

st-h

and

exp

erie

nces

with

the

imp

lem

enta

tion

pro

cess

. Th

is ty

pe

of ‘f

orm

ativ

e ev

alua

tion’

hel

ps

shap

e es

sent

ial m

odifi

catio

n of

im

ple

men

tatio

n st

rate

gie

s in

way

s th

at b

ette

r m

eet

the

need

s of

ind

ivid

ual d

istr

icts

and

sc

hool

s in

volv

ed in

eac

h p

roje

ct.

!

Kno

wle

dg

e C

aptu

re P

roto

cols

Yo

ur d

istr

ict

has

rece

ived

a p

acke

t of

info

rmat

ion

reg

ard

ing

co

nfid

entia

lity

pro

toco

ls fo

r co

nduc

ting

inte

rvie

ws,

focu

s g

roup

s, a

nd s

urve

ys.

The

pac

ket

incl

udes

ess

entia

l inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

the

KC

Pro

gra

m, ‘

info

rmed

con

sent

’ doc

umen

ts, a

des

crip

tion

of t

he p

urp

ose

of t

he

imp

lem

enta

tion

eval

uatio

n, c

onst

rain

ts o

n us

e of

dat

a, a

s w

ell a

s im

por

tant

det

ails

ab

out

vo

lunt

ary

par

ticip

atio

n.

FIG

URE

1: K

now

ledg

e Ca

ptur

e Fo

rmat

ive

Eval

uatio

n In

form

atio

n to

Sch

ool D

istr

icts

64

inform all project participants about the role of Knowledge Capture and approach to

formative evaluation of the implementation of the Straight A Grant. This information

was circulated to all project schools during September 2014. Additionally, a virtual

Q&A session was offered to all participants to provide an opportunity to discuss the

formative evaluation process and provide any additional information essential to inform

all participants of the approach to formative evaluation for the Growing SOIL Straight A

Grant.

Observation of Project Activit ies: Gathering data in the early stages of formative

evaluation is initiated with observation of planning sessions with the PAST

Implementation Team, as well as implementation workshops and during on-site visits

with school teams. Data developed from observation of planning sessions and on-site

tours throughout the course of the school year provided the opportunity for the

evaluation team to gather details on the implementation process, track modifications

to the implementation design, and develop a coordinated plan for engaging with

implementation activities related to key project goals.

Focus Groups: The SOIL team members were invited to participate in focus groups at

strategic points in the implementation process. Cohort 1 (C1) team members

participated in a structured dialogue to provide C1 participants with the opportunity to

explore strategies for partnership building, and to share insights on achievements and

new developments at the start of the fall 2014 school term. Cohort 2 (C2) teacher

focus groups were conducted during the Hocking Field School held during June 2015

to garner feedback on the field school experience for teachers, as well as insights

gained through their observations of student learning in an outdoor setting.

Pre- and Post-Surveys: Surveys provided the opportunity for individual school team

members to give feedback to the PAST Implementation Team on aspects of the

implementation process including planning sessions, resources, and PD workshops.

These surveys were conducted via a secure online web-based platform,

SurveyMethods®. Information to project participants about the survey and web link

was distributed to team members via BASECAMP® email notification. The June 2015

survey was also open to participants to complete as part of the activities slated for the

final presentation day at COSI on June 6.

65

Formative Evaluation Monthly Meetings: Members of the Knowledge Capture team

met monthly with the Implementation Team and the Growing SOIL Fairfield County

Educational Service Center grant manager to review and coordinate modifications to

implementation. Discussions included reviews of interim stages of analysis of

qualitative and quantitative data intended to inform ongoing implementation

strategies. Time was also allocated to plan and review coordination of quarterly report

preparation.

Analysis of data collected during the course of the project was reported in the quarterly

reports as shown in Table 2: Overview of Growing SOIL Formative Evaluation

Reporting 2014-2015.

TABLE 2: Overview of Growing SOIL Formative Evaluation Reporting 2014-2015

SOIL Cohort Evaluation Mode Date Conducted Report Submitted Cohort 1 Pre-Partner Development Focus

Group September 20, 2014 October 30, 2014

Cohort 1 Post-Implementation Survey December 6, 2014 January 30, 2015 Cohort 2 Pre-Planning Survey January 12-14, 2015 January 30, 2015 Cohort 2 Planning Sessions Observations February 20,

March 20-21 April 30, 2015

Cohort 2 Site Visit Observations May 19-20, 2015 July 30, 2015 Cohort 2 Teacher Focus Groups/Hocking

Field School June 6 and 12, 2015 July 30, 2015

Cohort 1 Post-Partner Implementation Survey

June 1-6, 2015 July 30, 2015

Cohort 1, 2 Growing SOIL Final Participant Survey, Cohort 1 and Cohort 2

October 2-13, 2015 October 30, 2015

Summary Overview 2014-15: Evaluation of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2

During the successive phases of implementation, the Knowledge Capture Team was on

the ground documenting various implementation activities. In this work, Growing SOIL

participants were observed as they worked to advance progress toward establishing

their outdoor learning labs, and generating new curriculum to create outdoor learning

experiences envisioned for each of the Growing SOIL schools. Additionally,

participants also contributed to the process for gathering strategic and highly

informative data through voluntary participation in focus groups, and in completing

surveys. Table 3: Growing SOIL Formative Evaluation Research Activities 2014-2015

presents key data collection points for both Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 during year 1

66

implementation. Formative evaluation activities are listed by month and year, and

include the number of Cohort participants engaged in each activity.

TABLE 3: Growing SOIL Formative Evaluation Research Activities 2014-2015

Month Formative Evaluation Number of

Participants

COHORT 1

2014 September

Cohort 1 Focus Group 7

Cohort 1 School Site Visits (6) 32

2014 December

Cohort 1 Post-Implementation Survey 10

Cohort 1 Presentation Observation 12 2015 June

Cohort 1 Post-Partner Survey 4

COHORT 2

2014 October

Cohort 2 Orientation Observation 16

School Site Visits (6) 14

2015 January

Cohort 2 Orientation Observation and Pre-Design Survey

15

2015 February

Cohort 2 Workshop Observation 17

2015 March

Cohort 2 Workshop Observation 20

Cohort 2 Presentation Observation 16 2015 May

School Site Visits (6) 10

2015 June

Cohort 2 Focus Group 5

Cohort 2 Interview 1

COHORT 1 and 2 2015 June

Final Presentation Observation 10

2015 October

Growing SOIL Final Survey Cohort 1 and 2 10

In this effort, Growing SOIL participants helped to build both the quantitative record,

and equally important qualitative account essential to understanding the process in

terms of the creative and innovative strategies that each team developed as the work

was underway. As in any undertaking, the plan as initiated was modified at different

points in successive phases of effort to better meet the needs of the participants to

support their vision, and to provide a path to success for all the Growing SOIL schools.

67

Growing SOIL: Cohort 1 Program Evaluation Overview 2014-15

In the fall of 2014, teachers from the nine schools in Cohort 1 (C1) were invited to

attend a work session to launch the second phase of work funded by the Growing SOIL

Straight A Grant. Orientation for C1 was conducted on September 20th and included a

focus group dialogue with (7) participants. The issues raised during the discussion

reflected work completed through June 2014 (during the spring term of the prior

grant), as well as early planning for the fall 2014 term. C1 team members were also

invited to complete a post-survey following the December 6 presentations (n=10). The

following sections present major areas of interest to the group at the start of the fall

term and at the close of the fall term, offering a comparative view of the project

implementation process focused on building partnerships to expand use of the

outdoor lab beyond the home school student population. This review of issues focuses

on goals for Cohort 1 including: 1) Integrated Curriculum for the Outdoor Lab; 2)

Student Engagement; and, 3) Building Community Partners.

Integrated Curriculum for the Outdoor Lab

Interest among the faculty in usage of the outdoor lab increased as the school SOIL

site took shape. In September, teachers reported that the lab had become a focal

point on the school grounds, including the idea of creating a new school identity,

triggering a different and positive view of the school by teachers, students, as well as

members of the community. Teachers described differences in instruction, as outdoor

learning was merged with classroom instruction. In particular, school-wide challenges

were identified as a way to engage other teachers, and to begin initiating curriculum

development for different grade levels. School-wide challenges also fostered

integration of content areas for teachers who began collaborating across grade levels,

with lower grade level teachers working with upper grade level teachers in new ways,

building a new framework for curriculum design for outdoor learning. Teachers also

noted that these new teaching partnerships across grade levels created increased

enthusiasm as use of the lab space grew.

In December, C1 Growing SOIL team members reported that curriculum design (n=6)

and continuing to build teacher buy-in (n=7) were important aspects of their team

efforts to meet goals for increasing use of the outdoor lab. Survey respondents also

reported that they had made progress with curriculum integration (n=7), and 50% of

68

the teachers reported that they had used science curriculum with students in the

outdoor lab (n=5). Over half of the 10 respondents said that they had successfully

collaborated with other teachers in developing outdoor lab projects (n=6).

A key factor identified in September and in December centered on the fundamental

need for common planning time or other ways to provide teachers with the opportunity

to collaborate on projects for the outdoor lab. In particular, teachers noted the critical

role of the building administrator in supporting collaboration by providing

opportunities for teachers to work together on projects, as well as with their new

community partners.

Student Engagement

Focus group participants reported that student engagement grew in diverse ways.

While some teachers reported that students had participated in various construction

and implementation activities, by mid-September there were clear signs that students

were exhibiting a sense of ownership by taking on tasks outside of classroom activities

(such as weeding) to maintain the outdoor lab site.

Teachers also described ways in which they planned to expand student exposure to

the outdoor lab through partnerships across elementary, middle and high schools. The

opportunity to build experiences for younger students to be mentored by older

students was also identified as an important new experience for increasing student

interest in the outdoor lab across grade levels.

In December, seven of the ten teachers commented that student interest remained

high following completion of design and construction. Four teachers noted that

students continued to stay involved with site maintenance, demonstrating students’

ongoing sense of ownership of the outdoor lab space.

Building Community Partnerships

In September, focus group participants reported on various ways in which they had

approached new partnerships with community organizations, including efforts to

educate the community more broadly about the outdoor learning lab. Inviting parents

and others in the community to the school to tour the outdoor lab was viewed both as

a means to build parent awareness, and also to build potential for strategic

69

partnerships with local organizations including master gardeners, birding groups,

native plant groups, and resource agencies, as well as open up possibilities for interest

from local businesses. University partnerships were also sought to engage content

expertise, as well as to explore the potential for establishing mentor programs

involving college students.

In December, nine of the ten survey respondents reported that they had established

community partnerships, and eight said these partnerships involved goals for building

sustainability for the outdoor lab facility. Two respondents identified the need for

administrative support in building community relations, suggesting that outreach about

the outdoor learning lab could include information on ways in which local residents and

businesses could play an important role in collaborating with students and teachers to

continue to build and strengthen the viability of the program for the long term.

Growing SOIL: Cohort 2 Program Evaluation Overview 2014-15

The launch of Cohort 2 (C2) planning began in January of 2015 for team members from

six schools. Participation in the initial two-day planning workshop was impacted by

weather conditions and constraints on travel to Columbus. Virtual participation was

offered for those unable to attend the workshop, and a pre-planning survey was

conducted to allow all Growing SOIL C2 participants (those at the workshop as well as

those participating virtually) to provide the PAST Implementation Team with insight on

initial perceptions about the project and goals for creating an outdoor lab envisioned

by each school team. A total of 13 individuals (86%) of the 15 participants in the

January workshop completed the pre-planning survey. The following discussion

focuses on 3 key aspects for C2 goals: 1) Student Engagement; 2) Teacher

Engagement; and, 3) Community Engagement for Sustaining the Outdoor Lab.

Student Engagement

In January, more than half of the C2 survey respondents (n=8) defined the top goal of

the Growing SOIL project as increasing meaningful engagement in learning

experiences to achieve a “real world application” for students. Six survey respondents

also said that learning outside of the classroom formed an approach with potential for

engaging students in new ways. Additionally, four respondents suggested that

beneficial outcomes of the Growing SOIL program would stem from creating new

70

curriculum for outdoor learning, and increasing creative uses by students of outdoor

spaces on the school campus. Three survey respondents specifically cited the

opportunity to develop transdisciplinary problem based learning (TPBL), and two

suggested that collaboration among teachers could be beneficial in creating student

projects and establishing different kinds of uses of outdoor learning areas.

In February and March during planning workshops, teachers continued to build

strategies to engage students, expanding ideas about specific ways students can

participate in design and implementation including during early stages of physical

construction of the outdoor lab facility. As curriculum development and experience

with students in the outdoor lab occurred, teachers expressed their views on the value

of working outdoors with students, including exposing students to working with

community partners, and in creating opportunities to work with students from other

schools within the district. As an example, one school involved elementary students in

creating maps and designing field guides to lead tours for visitors to the school.

Additional efforts to initiate outreach and build interest in the opportunity for students

to attend the Hocking Field School were also reported to include reaching out to

parents with the dual outcome of raising awareness of the outdoor learning program,

as well as the opportunity for students to participate in the summer immersion field

school.

Student ownership of projects has been a highlight of the experience in year 1 as

characterized by teachers in June during the Hocking Field School. Student

involvement in year 1 evolved over the course of the year as the design teams

progressed with their planning process. Some students were involved in providing

input regarding what they would like to learn about in the outdoor lab (i.e., “getting an

8th grader’s perspective”). And, as noted above, student involvement increased as

construction and actual class projects were initiated at the school outdoor lab site.

Teachers commented on the continuing role of students projected for year 2

implementation, including involving students in designing informational components of

the outdoor site with projects such as creating outdoor signs for different components

of the school grounds, cataloging micro-scale biodiversity of outdoor areas, and

managing the outdoor space.

71

Teacher Engagement

Similar to the C1 group, C2 survey respondents in January (n=6) identified the

challenge of building teacher buy-in among the school teaching staff. In March, during

the PD workshop, C2 teams described strategies they were applying to build staff buy-

in, and reported that they were seeing growing interest from colleagues about the

outdoor learning space. One C2 team reported that they were encouraged by

increased collaboration among teachers in taking on various aspects of implementing

the plan for the outdoor lab through formation of sub-committees, providing all the

teachers in the school a way to engage and give input to the Growing SOIL project.

Engaging teachers and building confidence in the value of outdoor learning for

students increased as teachers gained experience in working with students outdoors.

Notably, teachers at one school reported that initial observations of students working

in the outdoor lab has provided teachers with new insights and awareness of specific

gaps in student knowledge made apparent in the outdoor lab setting in comparison to

student demonstration of knowledge within the classroom setting. Teachers at that

same school also reported that student ability to use ecological vocabulary had

increased, largely gained from their experience outside the classroom.

During the Hocking Field School, each week teachers had the opportunity to

participate in structured dialogs about strategies for engagement with the Growing

SOIL project for the long term. Four key strategies were identified by teachers

concerning staff buy-in and ways to sustain teacher engagement:

• Communicate information about the Growing SOIL program to all newly hired

teachers for the 2015-16 academic year.

• Create multiple outdoor spaces to encourage teachers to envision ways to work

with students outdoors.

• Work with other teachers to share strategies for integrating outdoor learning

with lesson plans.

• Share ideas gained during the field school with other teachers at their home

school, including potential curriculum design for particular projects related to

ecological aspects of the school site.

72

Community Engagement for Sustaining the Outdoor Lab

In the pre-planning survey in January, C2 team members stated that creating TPBL

curriculum and outdoor learning experiences for students will open connections to the

community, and provide students with a meaningful application of problem based

learning in a real world context.

In May, site visits were conducted by the PAST Implementation Team and documented

by the Knowledge Capture Team. Each of the six schools developed a unique design

to meet learning priorities as well as maximize existing school features and other

potential resources through collaboration with partners, including business and local

organizations. Common aspects of the project planning experience provide a context

for considering particular elements of the process experienced during year 1 for

students, teachers, and their community. In describing the work completed to date,

and outlining ideas and plans for future implementation, the following were noted by

school teams:

ü Positive community response has generated in-kind donations and

arrangements for discounted costs for materials supplied by community partners, leveraging grant funds to purchase additional equipment and/or provide for construction costs (3 school sites).

ü Unexpended funds have helped to extend the design of the outdoor lab to include access to lab areas for disabled students, as well as nurture creative approaches for further development of no-cost solutions (3 school sites).

ü Linking the SOIL program with existing technology at the school site and/or tech support to create remote, real time imaging of student projects being conducted in the outdoor lab will increase continuity between the indoor and outdoor environments, and can also potentially extend outdoor lab learning resources to students at other schools (4 school sites).

ü The project is providing a unifying element, linking the outdoor environment of the school with the broader community landscape (comparing seasonal changes, awareness of plant and animal life cycle processes through observation and study in the outdoor lab, etc.). Students are also experiencing historical connections with existing but unused outdoor features of the school that are being renovated and repurposed through the SOIL program (3 school sites).

73

ü Students are engaging in implementation of the SOIL program, including

construction of lab features, renovating or restoring school site features, and documenting outdoor wildlife and other resources to support curriculum development (4 school sites).

ü Teachers are providing input to ideas for allocation of funds to support a

range of uses (3 school sites).

ü Use of local media is providing critical messaging to build community support of the outdoor lab project, increase awareness of the benefits for student learning, and potentially expand interest of new community partners (3 school sites).

Growing community interest in the project achieved surprising results from the

perspective of teachers who successfully gained community involvement in the form of

donated materials and supplies, or in-kind work, allowing design teams to scale up

implementation to include additional equipment, or to incorporate planned future

renovation or construction by the close of year 1. Additionally, teachers who attended

the Hocking Field School during June also expressed interest in communicating the

value of the summer program experience for students to the community to encourage

continued involvement and support of community partners.

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2: Final Observations During October 2015, C1 and C2 schools were offered the opportunity to provide an update on their progress through an online survey. Respondents addressed key goals for the project including use of the outdoor lab, curriculum development and integration with classroom/outdoor learning experiences for students, and observations about student benefits from outdoor experiences. Ten Growing SOIL participants across both cohorts completed the survey. The full survey report is presented in the Appendix to this report. All project participants (n=10) stated that they had used their SOIL outdoor lab since initiating the project, and all ten project participants also reported that other teachers were using the outdoor lab. Six of the ten Growing SOIL participants were able to implement TPBL modules, with five teachers stating that they had used both pre- and post-assessment rubrics, or only a pre-assessment rubric.

74

Collaboration among teachers remains a goal with eight project participants indicating they plan to reach out to teachers at other Growing SOIL schools in the future. Additionally, seven project participants said they were planning to attend a future professional development workshop to continue to gain skills in developing transdisciplinary problem based learning modules for use with the outdoor lab. However, just under half of the respondents (n=4) indicated that they had participated in the virtual brainstorm sessions as a means of reaching out to collaborate with other teachers. Two respondents who had not participated in the virtual sessions stated that they had not joined the virtual brainstorms due to their focus on working with teachers in the building, or lack of familiarity with how virtual groups work. Growing SOIL project participants were also asked to comment on the student summer field school at Hocking College. Half of the respondents reported that students at their school attended the field school (n=5). Of the five, four said that teachers from their school also attended the summer program. Additionally six Growing SOIL participants thought that teachers would be willing to attend summer field schools in the future. Finally, seven project participants stated they had observed positive student impacts associated with higher grades, increased engagement, or collaborative learning. Across the 2014-15 project year, the Straight A Grant supported 15 schools in nine districts to innovate new types of learning experiences for teachers and students alike, creating positive momentum to initiate collaborative actions to advance these schools and their students to a 21st century context for holistic, integrated learning. Growing SOIL team members engaged in this effort reported from first-hand experiences on ways in which the process supported their capacity to expand learning beyond the classroom walls, introducing students to innovative ways to learn, and guiding teachers to innovative ways to teach. Teachers were not only able to build outdoor labs, but also build outdoor learning communities, engaging students in real world learning, and growing wider community involvement and support for student success in their education.

75

Knowledge Capture APPENDIX

Growing SOIL

SOIL Chronology of Knowledge Capture Activities 2014 - 2015

Cohort 1 & 2 Growing SOIL Final Participant Survey Report

October 2015

76

*BP=Bullet Point Report, **OBSV= Observation,

KC Staff Date Event Cohort Product Participants

MH, MGC, MM

9/17/14KC Formative Evaluation Meeting

1, 2Project Review

PAST SOIL Staff, Grant Manager

MH, MGC, MM

9/20/14SOIL PD Workshop - Focus Groups

1 BP* Cohort 1 (n=7)

MH, MGC, LB

9/20/14 Principal Interview 1 BP SOIL School Principal

MM 9/22/14West High School Site Visit

1 OBSV**SOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

MM 9/22/14Metro High School/ Metro Middle School Site Visit

1 OBVSSOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

MM 9/22/14Starling Elementary Site Visit


MM 9/22/14Westmoor Middle School Site Visit


MM 9/25/14National Inventors Hall of Fame Site Visit


MM 9/25/14 BioMed Site Visit 1 OBVSSOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

MM 9/30/14Westmoor Site Visit (Follow up)


MM 10/3/14Growing SOIL Cohort 2 Orientation

2 BP 5 Growing SOIL Teams

MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MM 10/21/14 Lancaster Site Visit 2 BPSOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

MM 10/21/14Federal Hocking Site Visit

2 BPSOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

MM 10/22/14Fairfield Union Site Visit


MM 10/22/14Walnut Township Site Visit


Growing SOIL Chronology of Knowledge Capture Activities2014-2015

77


KC Staff

Date Event Cohort Product Participants

MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MM12/6/14-1/08/15

Cohort 1 Presentations - Post-Implementation Survey

1 BPPAST PD Team, Grant Manager, Guests; Cohort 1 (n=10), SurveyMethods® (web based)

MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MM 1/9-10/15 Growing SOIL PD 2 BP 4 Growing SOIL Teams

MM1/9 -

1/15/15Growing SOIL PD - Pre-Design Survey

2 BPCohort 2 (n=13), SurveyMethods® (web based)

MH, MM, AR


1,2Project Review


MM 2/20/15Growing SOIL Workshop


MH, MM, AR


1,2Project Review


MM 3/20/15Growing SOIL Workshop


MM 3/21/15Growing SOIL Cohort 2 Presentations

1,2 BP 4 Growing SOIL Teams

MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MH, MM, AR


1,2Project Review


KG 5/19/15Fairfield Union Site Visit


KG 5/19/15 Lancaster Site Visit 2 BPSOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

LB 5/20/15 Millersport Site Visit 2 BPSOIL Team, PAST Consultants, PAST PD Team Member

LB 5/20/15Federal Hocking Site Visit


Virtual 6/1-6/6/15Cohort 1 Post Survey Launch

1 BPCohort 1 (n=4), SurveyMethods® (web based)

MH, RO 6/4/15Growing SOIL MS Focus Group

2 BP 6 members of 3 SOIL Teams

78


KC Staff

Date Event Cohort Product Participants

MH, MM, AS

6/6/15Growing SOIL Final Presentation

1,2 OBVS PAST PD Team, Grant Manager, Guests

MGC 6/12/15Growing SOIL HS Interview

2 BP 1 HS SOIL Team member

MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MH, MM, AR


1, 2Project Review


MH, MGC, MM

10/2-10/13/15

Launch SOIL Final Participant Survey

1, 2 BPCorhort 1 and Cohort 2 (n=10), SurveyMethods® (web based)

79

STEM Outdoor Innovation Lab Final Participant Survey - Oct 2015

* 1. This is an anonymous survey. The PAST Foundation uses survey data to assess professional development needs in

the transition to STEM TPBL education and the implementation of STEM Outdoor Innovation Labs. Completing this survey will give you the opportunity to share your insights and concerns anonymously. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You may choose not to participate. By checking the response below that states you agree to participate in this survey, you confirm that you have read and understand the PAST Foundation’s Online Survey Anonymity Protocols provided for your review on the PAST Foundation website. You may review these protocols at any time on the PAST Foundation website (https://pastinnovationlab.org/irb-2014-01-006eth-growing-soil/).

m I agree to participate in this anonymous survey

2. Did you use your SOIL Lab?

m Yes m No

If not, can you tell us why?

___________________________________ 3. Do any of the other teachers in the school use the SOIL Lab?

m Yes m No

If yes, please tell us what grade levels and/or subjects

___________________________________ 4. Did you implement the TPBL module you planned?

m Yes m No


___________________________________ 5. If you did implement your TPBL module which assessment rubric did you use? [--Please Select--]

6. Have you reached out to others through the Virtual Brainstorms?

m Yes m No


___________________________________ 7. Will you reach out to other Growing SOIL schools in the future?

80

m Yes m No

8. Did your students attend the Summer Immersion Bridge Program?

m Yes m No


___________________________________ 9. If your students attended the Summer Immersion Bridge Program in Cohort 1, did you send students both years?

m Yes m No

If no, did they attend in 2014 or 2015?

___________________________________ 10. Did teachers accompany your students to the Bridge Program?

m Yes m No


___________________________________ 11. If teachers accompanied your students to the Bridge Program, do you believe they would go in the future?

m Yes m No

12. Have you identified any change in your students who have participated in SOIL? This could be in engagement,

commitment, collaboration, or grades.

m Yes m No

13. Do you plan to take advantage of the Professional Development workshops?

m Yes m No


___________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to answer 13 questions. Your answers are confidential. The aggregated information provided will be included in the final report.

81

Growing SOIL - Cohorts 1 and 2 Final Participant Survey Report October 2015 This document provides a review of the survey responses for the Growing SOIL Final Participant Survey. The survey was launched on Friday, October 2, 2015, and closed on Tuesday, October 13, 2015. The survey had (10) total respondents. The survey consisted of a total of (13) questions regarding Growing SOIL implementation during 2014-15. Question 1 asked for consent to participate in the anonymous survey. A total of (11) questions (Q2-4, 6-13) allowed participants to choose a Yes/No response, presented in bar chart format in this report. For Question 5, participants selected the assessment rubric they utilized from a drop-down menu. Responses are presented as a bar chart. Of the Yes/No questions, the survey design provided a comment box for respondents to expand their response to the question. Respondents selecting “No” could follow up with “If not, can you tell us why?” A table showing the follow-up responses for Questions 3, 4, 6, 8, and 13 is shown below each bar chart. Question 1: Assent to participate in anonymous survey. (n=10) Question 2: Did you use your SOIL Lab? (n=10)

Yes (n=10) No (n=0)

82

Question 3: Do any of the other teachers in the school use the SOIL Lab? (n=10)

Yes (n=10) No (n=0)

If yes, please tell us what grade levels and/or subjects (n=4)

Q3: If yes, please tell us what grade levels and/or subjects (n=4)

Subject Grade Level

5 6 7 8 7-12 9-12 All NA

Biology ✓ Special Ed Sciences

✓

Science ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Social Studies ✓

Math ✓

Language Arts ✓

Art ✓ Agriculture/FFA ✓ Physical Education

✓

Multiple ✓

83

Question 4: Did you implement the TPBL module you planned? (n=10)

Yes (n=6) No (n=4)

If not, can you tell us why? (n=4)

Q4: If not can you tell us why? (n=4)

Delay in project implementation

Working on other TPBL modules

Respondent is administrator

Planned unit written for class not taught by respondent

Lack of PD time to work with teachers before implementation

84

Question 5: If you did implement your TPBL module which assessment rubric did you use? (n=5)

Both (n=4) Pre-assessment (n=1) Post-assessment (n=0)

85

Question 6: Have you reached out to others through the Virtual Brainstorms? (n=9)

Yes (n=4) No (n=5)


Q6: If not, can you tell us why? (n=2) Currently working with others in my building face-to-face

Have not explored using virtual brainstorms to reach out to others

86

Question 7: Will you reach out to other Growing SOIL schools in the future? (n=10)

Yes (n=8) No (n=2)

87

Question 8: Did your students attend the Summer Immersion Bridge Program? (n=9)

Yes (n=5) No (n=4)


Q8: If not, can you tell us why? (n=4)

Response # of

Respondents

Post school-year schedule was not conducive to participation

3

No interest in attending Bridge Program 1

If offered during the school year allow 3-6 months to get School Board approval

1

88

Question 9: If your students attended the Summer Immersion Bridge Program in Cohort 1, did you send students both years? (n=5)

Yes (n=1) No (n=4)

If no, did they attend in 2014 or 2015? (n=3) • One respondent indicated students were sent in 2014 only • Two respondents indicated they did not send students either year

89

Question 10: Did teachers accompany your students to the Bridge Program? (n=7)

Yes (n=4) No (n=3)

If not, can you tell us why? • One respondent cited schedule conflicts and distance as a barrier • Two respondents said their students were unable to attend

90

Question 11: If teachers accompanied your students to the Bridge Program, do you believe they would go in the future? (n=7)

Yes (n=6) No (n=1)

91

Question 12: Have you identified any change in your students who have participated in SOIL? This could be in engagement, commitment, collaboration or grades. (n=9)

Yes (n=7) No (n=2)

92

Question 13: Do you plan to take advantage of the Professional Development workshops? (n=9)

Yes (n=7) No (n=2)


Q13: If not, can you tell us why? (n=2) Still determining what type of Professional Development would be most effective Pursuing other Professional Development opportunities

93

soil & growing soil final report

Documents