Student Learning Outcomes

High School Student Outcomes
We have found that students who participate in the project show significant growth in terms of their content understanding (tpre = 2.5, p < 0.01, tpost = 3.4, p<0.01) for urban students and (tpre = 3.1, p < 0.01,  tpost = 3.6, p<0.01) for the urban/suburban students). In evaluating the difference on urban as compared to suburban students we found significant difference between students from under-represented backgrounds in science regardless of location we found a significant difference, F(2, 660)=6.0, p<.01) with students of color improving their performance on the content exam (Mpre_urban = 5.5, Mpost_urban = 8.0) as compared to the Caucasian students (Mpre_urban = 7.5, Mpost_urban = 9.8). Further, to evaluate the overall impact of the project on student outcomes we conducted an analysis of covariance with the pre-test as being the covariate and found that all students showed a significant increase in their content understanding regarding the functioning and process of urban trees, F(2,669) = 5.5, p<.01). 

We also found similar results for the interview and open-ended responses as we did for the content exam (tpre_all = 2.0, p < 0.01,  tpost_all = 3.2, p<0.01). However, through our analysis of the interviews we found that at the beginning of the projects nearly all students, but particularly, urban students did not recognize that urban trees had value beyond removing carbon dioxide from atmosphere and adding oxygen to the atmosphere.

University Based Learning Outcomes
For the GE182 course we found generally positive outcomes in terms of improvement of a content knowledge similar to those the high school students.  For instance, on the content exam the mean scores improved from M=5.6 to M = 9.0 which was highly significant (t=7.8, p <0.01).  We also found that their beliefs about their ability to use information technology in their classroom improved significantly from M=1.2 to M -3.5 (t=6.0, p<0.01). 

For the ED551 course we found similar results. We assessed participants beliefs across a range of educational technological resources. The students experienced statistically significant levels of skill improvement in their classroom uses of IT and in their use of software tools specific to the UEI summer institute. Their general levels of IT use and their skill levels with PowerPoint and Excel did not increase significantly – which was not surprising, both because their initial levels on these measures were already moderately high and because those skills were not specifically emphasized at the institute.

Some teachers mentioned being introduced to or improving their skills with specific technologies, such as GIS or Google Maps. Others gained practice in explaining to students software that they already knew how to use. Several had begun thinking about new ways to use technology in their work. “I feel comfortable enough to begin to work on developing a course in GIS for science students,” said one teacher. One teacher reported a change in attitude toward technology in the classroom. “I tend to be wary of overusing technology with the way students are bombarded with it on a daily basis. However, I found the applications for this work were effective and not overdone.”