Many educators take students into their local watershed hoping they will come to care for it. Does a local project on its own do that? And what gets in the way?
The researchers followed two experienced middle school teachers and their 226 students in the Midwestern United States through the 2018–19 school year. Before and after the projects, students took a short Great Lakes knowledge test and wrote a paragraph on how people harm wildlife habitat and what could be done. They also filled in a survey on four things: their feelings toward nature, their attachment to their community, their everyday environmental habits, and their confidence to act on local problems. Teachers rated their own projects against principles of good place-based teaching, and took part in a group interview.
Both classes spent the year on damage to wildlife habitat, but their projects looked different. In an urban school, a 7th-grade science class raised salmon in a classroom tank, tested five local streams, and released the fish in the stream students judged healthiest. In a suburban school, a 7th- and 8th-grade class traced rainwater runoff from a pond on the school grounds to a nearby neighborhood lake. They also pulled 90 bags of an invasive plant, garlic mustard, from land near the school, and mailed a student-made flyer about it to 253 local homes.
The researchers found:
- Students who felt they had a say, and saw results, grew the most. At the end, students rated two statements: "Students in this project got to make some choices about what to do and how to do it" and "I saw how my work in our stewardship project helped protect or improve the environment." Students who agreed with either one mostly grew on the survey's four measures. Students who disagreed mostly slipped back. Neither statement was linked to scores on the knowledge test.
- Knowledge grew a little, and care for the environment held steady. Knowledge test scores rose about 5% overall, and about 10% in the suburban class. Across all students, the written answers and the survey showed no real change. The urban class showed small gains in feelings toward nature and confidence to act.
- Partnerships were the easy part; voice and public discussion were the hardest. Teachers rated themselves strongest on working with community partners and on giving projects weeks or months to unfold. They rated themselves weakest on student voice, exploring different viewpoints, exploring students' own values, and public discussion. The urban class, for example, made posters to share its project with the community, but they were never put up, and students had no chance to talk with community leaders.
- Many obstacles sat outside the classroom. To qualify for funding, teachers had to fix the project's focus in advance, which left less room for student choice. Recommended readings were hard for some students, especially those learning English. Each teacher was the only one in their school doing this work, and one felt school leaders did not fully understand it. Record snowfall cut outdoor time. A neighborhood association also withdrew access to the lake one class planned to test, citing worries about liability.
What this means for your practice:
- Give students a real say, even when the topic is set. Choice went hand in hand with growth here (finding 1). When a funder or curriculum fixes the topic, the researchers suggest telling students how and why it was chosen, then inviting them to help reach the goal. Make sure students know when they are making a choice, and ask for their feedback along the way.
- Show students what their work changed. Students who saw their impact grew more (finding 1). The researchers suggest drawing a clear line from each task to what it improves locally. Releasing salmon into the stream students had judged healthiest is one example of work with a visible result.
- Plan the public part from the start. Public discussion was the teachers' weakest area, and finished posters went unseen (finding 3). Decide early who will see students' work and how students can talk with local decision-makers. The researchers note that video calls can work when meeting in person is not possible.
- Make time for viewpoints and values. Teachers rated these among their weakest areas (finding 3). Ask students what different people in the community think about the issue, and what they think themselves.
- Build support around you. Teachers found the work isolating and felt the lack of backing from school leaders (finding 4). Both valued the program's help finding partners and funding, and a kickoff day at a local museum where community groups ran hands-on stations on threats to the Great Lakes. Share your plans with school leaders early, and look for partners who can take on some of the organizing.
The Bottom Line
The researchers followed two experienced teachers and 226 middle school students through a year of local watershed projects. On average, students' knowledge of the Great Lakes rose a little, and their care for the environment stayed about the same. The clearest pattern was in how students experienced the project. Students who felt they had real choices, or who could see their work helping the environment, grew in their care for nature, their attachment to their community and their confidence to act. Students who did not mostly slipped back. Teachers found community partnerships the easiest part, and student voice and public discussion the hardest. For educators, getting students outdoors is a strong start, but giving them a real say and showing them what their work achieved matter too.