Strnad_FinalReport

Running Head: MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT
Meaningful Engagement:
Connecting with Participants Upon Conclusion of the
Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy
Renee L. Strnad
Lesley University
December 9, 2014
EINTD 7007

MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT 2
Abstract
Opportunities to extend engagement with participants of the North Carolina Sustainable Forestry
Teachers’ Academy were investigated through the process of action research. Specifically, key
principles of well-designed professional development were used as a framework throughout the
research process. The Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy (SFTA) is a five day, four-night
residential program for approximately 70 teachers. Held annually, the SFTA addresses forest
industry connections to social, economic, environmental issues and conditions across the state.
Surveys, using a mixed-method of data collection, were distributed to past teacher participants
and summer forestry teacher program providers. Additionally, a focus group comprised of ten
North Carolina teachers honed the professional development value of the SFTA. The results of
this study suggest some actions to extend engagement with SFTA participants include the use of
an email list-serve, the creation of an Edmodo site, promoting an ambassador program for past
participants, and hosting an alumni gathering. These actions will raise the professional
development value of the SFTA through continued facilitator engagement with participants and
increase teacher communication around forestry education in the classroom.

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4
The North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers' Academy....................................... 4
Problem Statement and Rational......................................................................................... 6
Research Question .......................................................................................................... 7
Project Importance: Internal and External...................................................................... 7
Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 10
Methodology..................................................................................................................... 16
Participants.................................................................................................................... 17
Co-researchers....................................................................................................... 18
Additional Assistance ........................................................................................... 18
Data Collection and Analysis....................................................................................... 19
Findings............................................................................................................................. 24
Validity and Ethics........................................................................................................ 26
Implementation ................................................................................................................. 29
Presentation of Data ..................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 32
References......................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix A. Teacher Forestry Education Program Providers ......................................... 39
Appendix B. 2014 SFTA Post-Academy Evaluation ....................................................... 41
Appendix C. Teacher Forestry Education Program Providers Survey ............................. 47
Appendix D. Focus Group Data Visualization ................................................................. 59

Introduction
My work as the Environmental Educator for Extension Forestry at North Carolina State
University provides me the opportunity to work directly with teachers. One of the programs I
coordinate at the state level is Project Learning Tree®
. Project Learning Tree (PLT) is a non-
profit environmental organization dedicated to teachers and other educators including parents
and community leaders. The base of the program is environmental education curricula for
preschool through grade 12. As the PLT state coordinator, I conduct professional development
workshops for teachers and others interested in using the PLT materials. PLT has also been my
gateway into state and regional conferences for science and social studies teachers, as well as
college pre-service teacher programs.
In my 14 years of work with PLT, I have learned that teachers desire knowledge that will
help enrich their students’ learning experiences. Additionally, a majority of the teachers I work
with do not want to learn this information through lectures and PowerPoint presentations.
Experiential educational opportunities provide the educational setting where teachers
purposefully engage in direct experiences in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify
values and develop the capacity to contribute to their community or classroom (AEE, 2014).
These rich learning experiences for teachers also model ways to transfer the learning experiences
back to the classroom.
The North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy
The North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy (formerly the North
Carolina Teachers’ Tour) began as a partnership between the Temperate Forest Foundation and
the North Carolina Forestry Association in 1999. Both of these organizations desired to educate
citizens about the vital role that forests, trees, and wood products play in supporting human

population and the quality of life. The organizations are also similar in their promotion of
healthy forest ecosystems and responsible use of forests. In 2001, the program transferred to
North Carolina partners, becoming a program developed and facilitated by the North Carolina
Forestry Association and the North Carolina State University Forestry and Environmental
Outreach Program. The North Carolina partners agreed to continue to promote the program
goals of understanding the complexities of forest management for a healthy environment, a range
of social benefits, and a strong economy.
The North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy (SFTA) is currently
structured as a five day, four-night residential program. One program is located in North
Carolina’s Coastal Plain, the other in the mountains of North Carolina. Approximately 70
teachers attend the program annually. The SFTA addresses forest industry connections to social,
economic, environmental issues and conditions across the state. Teachers are introduced to these
concepts through a variety of activities, speakers, and field experiences. Throughout the week,
numerous resources are provided to help teachers incorporate their new knowledge into the
classroom.
I attended the Mountain SFTA as a participant in 2005, and the Coastal SFTA in 2006.
Upon the conclusion of the 2006 program, I became a member of the facilitator team alongside
Dr. Susan Moore, Director of the North Carolina State University Forestry and Environmental
Outreach Program, and Jennifer Grantham, then Director of Education for the North Carolina
Forestry Association. As the Environmental Educator for North Carolina State University
Extension Forestry and the State Coordinator of Project Learning Tree®
, I was able to provide
valuable resources and North Carolina K-12 curriculum knowledge to the team.

Through our work together, the program expanded in 2007 to incorporate a PLT
workshop, an expanded resource notebook and supplemental CD-ROM, explicit time to discuss
curriculum ties in grade level groups, and learning objectives for each SFTA activity. Another
program update to increase the professional development value of the program included
changing the name of the program from Tour to Academy.
Problem Statement and Rationale
Professional development programs should provide educators with content knowledge
and opportunities to experience their own learning, especially if they will be facilitating similar
inquiry-based experiences for students in the classroom (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman,
2005). I am of the opinion that the SFTA has always accomplished this goal with the variety of
activities and learning experiences provided to teachers during the program.
Many teacher professional development programs focus on increasing teacher content
knowledge, but lack clear emphasis on how teachers can translate the new knowledge into the
classroom (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010, p. 40). One way to address
this shortcoming is to model how to apply new knowledge to practice as we currently do during
the SFTA. Another is through continue engagement with teachers and supporting them as they
translate their new content knowledge into practice. Upon the conclusion of the SFTA, we have
no system in place providing continued engagement with participants to determine how they are
using the information in their classrooms, or for teachers to share with each other. Action
research is a systematic inquiry to gather information to gain insight and effect positive changes
on educational practices (Mills, 2011, p.5). For this project, I used the process of action research
to discover methods of extending engagement with participants upon the conclusion of the
SFTA.

Research Question
Seven years after program modification, the SFTA facilitator team began evaluating how
to adapt and update the SFTA to remain in alignment with current educational trends and
educator needs. A survey completed by 215 past participants in the fall of 2013 revealed that
85% of the participants would like some type of additional forest education opportunities
including another academy, one-day workshops, webinars, content specific web site, a blog, or
classroom visits (Moore, Grantham, & Strnad, 2013). Additionally, despite annual formal
participant evaluation, I also wondered what teachers in North Carolina consider valuable to their
professional development in relation to our Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academies.
Currently, we do not have meaningful contact with participants upon conclusion of the
academy. I believe that teachers will have greater success implementing forestry topics into their
classroom if there is a way to continue forestry education related conversations in formal and
informal settings, and with program facilitators and other teacher participants. The purpose of
my research is to determine ways to create meaningful engagement activities for teachers that
have attended our program. This desire has led to my action research question and sub-question:
 How can I create a meaningful continued engagement experience for teachers from
across North Carolina attending our annual Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy?
o How do other extended forestry education program connect with teachers after
their events?
Project Importance: Internal and External
I am passionate about the SFTA because of the content and the quality of the program. I
believe forestry practices today are often viewed through a historical lens when overharvesting
of trees and land degradation was an industry norm. Today, there are stricter regulations on

forestry practices that protect soils, water quality, and habitat. Trees are important components
of our communities and ecosystems, but also provide us with many resources. Healthy forests
are important for numerous ecosystem services that are fundamental to human health including
air quality, water quality, and carbon sequestration (USDA, 2013). Forests are vital for plant and
animal diversity. Uhl (2013) writes:
The mistaken belief that Earth is simply here to serve as a supply house for human needs
leads us to see the forest as a “woodlot” and the stream as a “hydropower generator”; but
of course, the forest and streams, first and foremost, serve as homes for other species. (p.
95, emphasis original)
Human and natural systems are intertwined through forests, and the SFTA helps teachers begin
to see the connections that are often overlooked.
A majority of the teachers I have met through the SFTA do not have a background in
forestry, yet they are required to teach forestry concepts as part of their North Carolina curricular
objectives. I speculate that this lack of forestry knowledge is true for teachers throughout the
state. For me, it is exciting to increase teacher understanding of the complicated topic of forests,
forest use, and forest management. SFTA provides a variety of activities to increase teacher
knowledge, but as a facilitator I help them construct new meanings of what forestry is, the
importance of forestry to the history of North Carolina, the state’s economy, and to our
environmental health.
I believe the SFTA is important to North Carolina teachers because we provide a no-cost
opportunity to receive professional development, focusing on content knowledge that many
teachers lack. Teachers within the state must obtain 7.5 licensure renewal credits through
professional development activities ever five years, and the SFTA provides a minimum of 2.5

continuing education credits (Licensure, n.d.). Additionally, many researchers agree a key
aspect for professional develop is a focus on subject content knowledge, and the SFTA meets
this goal. Borko (2004, pg. 5) stresses that “teachers must have a ‘rich and flexible’ knowledge”
of the subjects they teach in order to foster students’ understandings. These types of learning
experiences provide teachers with the knowledge they need to help connect ideas, answer
questions, and facilitate similar learning experiences within their classrooms (Jeanpierre et al,
2005; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Capps, Crawford, &
Constas, 2012; Capps & Crawford, 2013). The SFTA provides this type of professional
development learning experience through a variety of activities.
Furthermore, the SFTA focuses on communicating system dynamics, which is included
as one of seven crosscutting concepts in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013).
This concept challenges teachers, and their students, to discover how core scientific knowledge
crosses disciplinary boundaries. The NGSS states it is important to question and discover the
interactions that occur within a system, as well as begin to comprehend assumptions and
approximations when we investigate models of systems. Meadows (2008) reminds us that real
world systems can be surprising because of three truths:
1. Everything we think we know about the world is a model,
2. Our models usually have a strong congruence with the world,
3. Our models fall short of representing the world fully (p.86).
In order for teachers to help their students understand the complexities of systems, they must
begin to understand system characteristics. Additionally, studying systems helps us recognize
system structures, leading to an understanding of not only what is happening but why (Meadows,
2008, p. 89, emphasis original). I allege that immersive, experiential activities like the SFTA can

help build these understandings and provide teachers the knowledge they need to educate their
students, and thereby creating future generations that are more aware of human-Earth
interactions.
Lastly, the SFTA challenges teachers to recognize multiple sides of environmental issues
and use critical thinking skills, which I believe are crucial for future voters and natural resource
managers. It is imperative that we provide educators with correct and balanced information
about forest management and forest resources. During the SFTA, we challenge teachers to
recognize multiple sides of environmental issues and use critical thinking skills to build new
understandings to take back into the classroom. The information classroom teachers share with
their students could spark interest to explore local forest-related issues, pursue education in
forestry, or natural resources management. I recognize the number of students pursuing natural
resource advanced education degrees could be low. Therefore, I also consider the forestry
information that students receive in their K-12 education highly important because it could be the
summation of the formal education they receive on the topic.
Literature Review
The goal of the SFTA is to increase K-12 teachers’ knowledge about our state’s forest
resources and industry so they can transfer this information to their students. In this literature
review, I examine effective professional development for teachers. The information learned
about effective professional development helped frame my action research by examining the
program’s professional development strengths and weaknesses.
The definition of professional development (PD) is as broad as the activities
characterized as PD. Desimone (2009) reminds us that teachers take part in PD on a daily basis,
ranging from workshops during in-service days to informal hallway discussion with peers. A

crucial piece that researchers agree upon is that teacher PD is key to improving student learning,
and understanding the effectiveness of professional development is critical (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2009; Tournaki, Lyublinskaya, & Carolan, 2011; Desimone, 2011).
In the 2009 report Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on
Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad, the authors outline four key principles
for designing PD:
1. Professional development should be intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice;
2. Professional development should focus on student learning and address the teaching
of specific curriculum content;
3. Professional development should align with school improvement priorities and goals;
4. Professional development should build strong working relationships among teachers
(Darling-Hammond et al., pp. 9-11).
Similarly, Desimone (2009, 2011) outlines five core features of effective professional
development: content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation.
There are clearly overlaps between these two models, however Desimone adds active learning to
her model, stressing the importance of teacher involvement in their own PD. Additionally, she
emphasizes the duration of PD by topic should be 20 or more hours annually.
For this project, I am focusing on the four key principles of PD outlined by Darling-
Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) and how they relate to the SFTA.
The first principle states that PD should be intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice.
Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) discovered teachers were engaging in professional development
within their academic areas, but the time spent on this form of PD was less than 16 hours
annually, with only 23% percent reporting more than four days of PD on the content in subjects

taught. Results of national study of mathematics and science teachers determined that time span
and number of contact hours were important measures of effective PD (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman & Yoon, 2001). As previously mentioned, Desimone (2009) does not believe that
research “has indicated a ‘tipping point’ for the duration of effective professional development”
(p.184) but it does show support for activities that total 20 hours or more. However, research
supports the notion that effective professional development programs provide teachers additional
PD opportunities after the initial program or training (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, &
Gallagher, 2007; Capps, et al., 2012). The SFTA currently offers 20-25 hours of professional
development in the weeklong meeting, but lacks a program component after the teachers have
completed the program. The addition of a post-academy engagement activity could help meet
SFTA goals of increased forestry education in classrooms across the state.
The second principle of effective PD focuses on student learning and addresses the
teaching of specific curriculum content. Effective PD focuses on increasing teachers’ knowledge
and skills in relation to curricular content, going beyond workshops focusing on classroom
management or administrative issues. Many researchers agree the key is focusing on subject
content knowledge, and SFTA meets this goal with content focusing on forestry issues from
seedling to final products. To foster students’ understandings, teachers must have a breadth and
depth of knowledge regarding the subject matter being taught (Borko, 2004). These types of
learning experiences provide teachers with the knowledge they need to help connect ideas,
answer questions, and facilitate similar learning experiences within their classrooms (Jeanpierre,
et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Capps, et al., 2012; Capps & Crawford, 2013).
Desimone (2009) states:

The content focus of teacher learning may be the most influential feature. A compilation
of evidence in the past decade points to the link between activities that focus on subject
matter content and how students learn that content with increases in teacher knowledge
and skills, improvements in practice, and, to a more limited extent, increases in student
achievement. (p. 184)
As facilitators, we constantly review state curriculum objectives, ensuring we are meeting the
content needs of teachers. This information is shared with teachers throughout the week.
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2009), research also suggests PD is most effective
when it addresses specific academic subject matter. Findings from a study conducted by Penuel
et al. (2007) regarding teacher use of the GLOBE program suggests that curriculum alignment is
important, but teachers’ judgments about the alignment of the program with their personal goals
for student learning is more important. Information presented during the SFTA addresses
curriculum objectives outlined by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s
Standard Course of Study. Science courses provide obvious connections, however a number of
learning opportunities also link to social studies and mathematic standards as well.
The third principal of effective PD as outlined by Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) is a
reminder that PD should align with school improvement priorities and goals. Professional
development activities are less effective if they are isolated events and not in alignment with
other school reforms. If teachers see PD as relevant to their everyday work in the classroom,
they are more likely to try new curriculum and teaching methods (Capps et al, 2012). The use of
learning objectives and distribution of curriculum correlated to curricular goals promotes the
relevancy of the SFTA.

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction released a school improvement
guide in September 2013. This guide lists five principles for school improvement:
1. NC public schools will produce globally competitive students;
2. NC public schools will be led by 21st
Century professionals;
3. NC public school students will be healthy and responsible;
4. Leadership will guide innovation in NC public schools;
5. NC public schools will be governed and supported by 21st
Century systems (Public
Schools of North Carolina, 2013).
The SFTA does help address some of these goals, especially those related to classroom teachers.
Teachers begin to understand the “interconnectedness of the world”, relationships with the
environment, and the use of natural resources on a global scale during the SFTA (Public Schools
of North Carolina, 2013, p. 48). Other ties to North Carolina school improvement include
promoting a culture of life-long learning, providing information to help students make
responsible choices, and introducing opportunities to collaborate with high education institutions
to provide educational opportunities for students.
The last key PD principle from Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) relates to teacher working
relationships and collaboration. Throughout the literature there are many recommendations
regarding the benefits of teachers working together and learning from each other. The teaching
profession in the United States struggles with developing professional collaboration because
teachers work alone and are given little time together to plan lessons, share practices, assess
students, and other administrative decisions (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009, p. 11). Effective
PD programs offering content knowledge and providing time for teachers to interact can
facilitate improved teacher efficacy (Lakshmanan, Heath, Perlmutter, & Elder, 2011). Providing

time during PD for teachers to discuss implementation should be an essential feature of effective
PD (Capps et al., 2012). Desimone (2009) refers to this as collective participation, which can
take place between teachers from the same school, grade, or department. During the SFTA, we
do provide time for teachers to come together in grade-based cohorts to discuss ideas for the
implementation of the knowledge and materials provided during the week. This does help
remove an isolation factor that some teachers may feel if they are not attending PD with others
from their school. However, at the conclusion of SFTA, we do not have a method to help
facilitate these continuing conversation and collaborations.
The SFTA provides effective PD addressing the forest-related content needs of teachers
in North Carolina, however, it could be improved to reflect best practices. The information
provided closely aligns to course content teachers are required to present in their classrooms and
is congruent with school improvement policies and goals. However, the areas of effective PD
presented by Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) I find lacking during the SFTA are key principles 1
and 4: PD should be ongoing and PD should build strong working relationships. Tournaki et al.
(2011) remind us that even long-term effective PD programs might not have a positive effect on
all areas of practice. However, I consider key principles 1 and 4 closely linked, and therefore an
area for improvement in our program.
Throughout the PD research body, there is consensus on the elements of effective
professional development programs. However, the challenge is how to design and implement a
program that addresses these principles (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). Additionally, there are
many ways to provide extended support upon the completion of a PD activity including
classroom visits, reunions, chat groups, discussion boards, job-embedded activities, and virtual
meetings (Capps et al., 2012; Marrongella, Sztjn, & Smith, 2013). My action research project

helped me determine the best type of extended engagement with teachers upon the completion of
the SFTA, thereby creating a more effective PD program.
Methodology
As a facilitator of the SFTA, I believe that we provide a valuable professional
development opportunity for teachers. However, our program lacks a component of extended
engagement. Adding an extended engagement component has been discussed, but as facilitators
we were unsure what types of activities teachers would find valuable. Finding answers through
action research allows practitioners to seek change by reflecting on their practice (Dana, 2013,
p.2). I was also curious if other similar programs across the United States included post-program
engagement and included an investigation of other programs into my action research project.
Action research encourages practitioners to move away from linear ideas of causality,
and promotes thinking about multiple forces interweaving for causation (Bradbury, 2003). The
action research process allowed freedom to explore multiple avenues and wonderings about the
SFTA and extended engagement through a systematic process. Action research requires the
personal study of your teaching practice to improve the quality and results. Schmuck (2006)
encourages the action researcher to move away from intelligent assessments of where you are at
present as a practitioner, and use reflection on past and future strategies to realize the change you
seek; action research can be empowering (p. 28). This has been especially important this year as
we faced program changes beyond our control and the action research process allowed me to
focus on the positive educational changes we wanted to make to the program.
Action research correlates well with ecological teaching and learning. Reason and
Bradbury (2006) remind us that the process of action research is a way of being and doing in the
world. Action research is a way to inform our practices, but allows the practitioner to respond

creatively. Bringing research and action together allows us to understand the complexity of
whole situation, and act upon learned insights. Action research is based on a participatory
worldview, bringing people together to pursue solutions that will help people and communities
flourish (Reason & Bradbury, 2006). I do hope that my action research project improves the
SFTA, teacher experiences, and the knowledge gained by students. I also think that the ideas
and information I discoved will be beneficial for others providing similar programs.
Participants
The participants in my action research project are comprised of three distinct groups of
educators. The first group included 56 North Carolina teachers that attended our 2014 summer
program. The 2014 participants included 17 elementary teachers (grades k-5), 22 middle school
teachers (grades 6-8), 11 high school teachers (grades 9-12), two college-based instructors, and
four teachers that reach across multiple grade divisions. Participation in the 2014 program was
lower than our annual average due to lodging constraints in one location.
The second group of educators included 17 program providers across the United States.
(Appendix A). These educators are located within universities, non-governmental state forestry
associations, and state governmental forestry agencies. Dovetail Partners (2013), a non-profit
organization providing forestry educational information, lists the states providing summer
professional development programs focusing on forestry education for classroom teachers.
These program providers lead summer professional development programs similar to our
Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academies in their home states. I know the programs are similar
to the North Carolina program from past conversations with program facilitators, through
internet research, or email communication with program facilitators for this project.

The third group of educators included in my project involved ten North Carolina teachers
that attended a focus group held on October 13, 2014. These teachers responded to an email
invitation sent to 22 teachers that had previously attended at least one of our academies,
expressed interest in a Piedmont Academy on previous surveys, and lived within two hours of
our meeting location in Chatham County, North Carolina. My co-researchers and I strived for a
mix of grade levels at the focus group, and our final breakdown included three elementary
teachers, four middle school teachers, and three high school teachers. The focus group has a
total of 132 years of teaching experience, with the range from 8-20 years in the classroom. All
participants were given a $100 stipend for their participation, and lunch and refreshments were
also provided.
Co-researchers. Dr. Susan Moore, Director of the North Carolina State University
Forestry and Environmental Outreach Program, and Jennifer Grantham, Environmental
Education Consultant for the North Carolina State University Forestry and Environmental
Outreach Program, have been involved with the facilitation of the SFTA since it began in North
Carolina. As my co-researchers, they played a crucial role by helping me draft survey questions,
review my data and interpretations, and will help guide the actions from my findings.
Additional Assistance. I must mention two other people that were instrumental in cycle
two of project. Though not co-researchers, Pat Maloney and Mike de Lasaux were instrumental
in assisting me with the creation of the program provider survey I used in cycle two of my
project. I met them through Project Learning Tree, and had the pleasure of presenting with them
at the 2014 Project Learning Tree International Coordinator’s Conference in Michigan. It was
during this conference that the three of us decided that we needed to begin bringing together all

the summer forestry program providers to share information, and my project was a great
beginning point.
I would also like to thank Addie Thornton, Program Coordinator for the Forestry and
Environmental Outreach Program. She manually enters the data from the SFTA teacher
evaluations annually, and she graciously included my additional research questions in her data
entry. Dr. Kathryn Stevenson, post-doctoral researcher in the NC State University Department
of Forestry and Environmental Resources, deserves my whole-hearted thank you as well for her
proofreading assistance.
Data Collection and Analysis
In my project, I used a mixed-method of data collection by combining quantitative and
qualitative data. A mixed-method approach builds on the strength of each form of data, and can
deepen the understanding of the story the data is telling (Mills, 2011, p.4). In looking to answer
my research question, I was seeking numerical evidence as well as narratives to help lead me to
future actions for the program.
My first cycle of data collection took place in June 2014, before the beginning of the
action research project. This archival data was important to my research because I had
immediate access to the teacher participants and the experience was fresh in their minds. Upon
the conclusion of each academy, participants complete a paper program evaluation. Specifically
for my action research project, I added four additional questions to our standard evaluation as
well as an introduction to my project and a statement of inclusion (12-15, Appendix B). These
questions related specifically to interest in a variety of follow-up activities via a Likert-scale, a
list of online tools for teachers to select as ways to connect with academy facilitators and
participants; and an open-ended question relating to incorporating forestry education into the

classroom. The last question asked teachers what they would be willing to pay for a one-day
follow-up program. These four questions were to help me judge what type of activities teachers
would consider valuable, and how much they would be willing pay for these additional
experiences. This data was hand entered into a spreadsheet for easier analysis.
The data for questions 12, 13, and 15 were quantitative, so a simple comparison of
response frequencies determined which areas the teachers were most interested in pursuing for
continued engagement in the program. Question 14 was short answer, and required some coding
to pull out ideas that would help teachers incorporate forestry education into their classrooms. I
used grounded theory to generate the code categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2007), meaning I
derived the categories from patterns I noticed in the data rather than using pre-determined codes.
The four categories I used to sort this data were: ideas that could be provided online, ideas that
are beyond the scope of the program in its current format, ideas that teachers could help each
other with, and information that is covered but not equally in both program locations. The last
category was included specifically because I noticed frequent requests for information that is
covered more in one academy over the other, as the focus of each program is slightly different.
The information gained from this first round of data collection guided the structure of
some of the questions for my second cycle of data collection. For example, I had not included an
email or list-serve as a way to connect with participants, however, five participants wrote this
option as a way they would choose to communicate. I also structured some of the survey
questions to see how other states provide information online or in formats different that our
program.
My second cycle of data collection was a survey (Appendix C) of 17 summer forestry
program providers. The survey was distributed through Qualtrics™ and was open for 15 days.

The first email included information about my project and asked the participants to consider
participating. Three reminders were sent, and all 17 providers completed the survey for a 100%
completion rate. The survey included single answer, multiple choice, and short answer
questions. I also provided the opportunity for participants to enter any other information they
felt was important for my project but not specifically addressed in the survey.
The purpose of the survey was to help me discover answers to my research sub-question
by investigating extended engagement opportunities other programs provided. The survey also
allowed me to begin exploring how other state programs are configured and how other similar
programs strive to connect with their participants.
Again, a majority of the data collected was quantitative, and was compiled by the
Qualtrics program. This data was provided in easy to read bar graphs, enabling me to quickly
discern the information the program providers shared. A few questions presented qualitative
data, but the responses were limited. Question 32 asked about the types of action program
participants are asked to complete at the conclusion of the program. These responses were
simply separated into what I called soft asks, meaning there is little follow up or consequences if
actions are not taken; and requirements, which resulted in earning continuing education credits or
additional stipends. The last question of the survey was also an opportunity for program
providers to share anything else they felt was relevant that was not previously addressed in the
survey. These answers were coded as clarification of a survey response and general program
information. My co-researchers reviewed this data and we discussed some of the aspects that
varied from our program. Overall, they did not have much comment on the data.
My third cycle of data collection took place on October 13, 2014, when 10 previous
participants in our program gathered at the Stan Adams Training Facility at Jordan Lake

Educational State Forest in Chatham County, North Carolina. The purpose of the focus group
was to determine the professional development strengths and weakness of our current program
format and how the teachers would design a new program. My co-researchers and I began the
meeting at 9am with an overview of the day, information about my project including a statement
that the work during the day would be used in my project and to inform the creation of a new
Piedmont academy. Working in grade level groups, the teachers addressed three questions:
 What are the key aspects of professional development (PD) that help you bring back
what you have learned into the classroom? Clarification was given stating how and
what are important piece of PD.
 Thinking back to what you said about important pieces of PD programs:
o What pieces of the SFTA fit your model?
o What could be added/done to SFTA to address the missing pieces/parts
 What forestry and natural resource topics or activities should be included in a Piedmont
Academy to deepen and round out your knowledge?
Question three is not included in my discussion as it falls outside the scope of my research
questions.
Groups were given roughly 30 minutes to discuss and record their answers on flip-chart
paper. Following the group work time, my co-researcher Dr. Moore led the debriefing of each
grade level group. I took additional notes throughout the debriefing discussions, including
clarifying questions. We followed this protocol for all three questions. At the conclusion of the
focus group, I transcribed the flip chart information and combined it with my handwritten notes.
Due to the room acoustics, the size of the room, and the length of the focus group, I decided that

voice recording would not be beneficial. My co-researchers reviewed these notes for
clarification and to ensure that all comments were captured as they remembered.
The large amount of qualitative data required coding that would help me detect any
patterns in the data. I first began by attempting a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss,
2007), however the wide variety of answers, some of which did not relate to my research
question, made this technique inappropriate. The purpose of the focus group was to determine
how the SFTA meets professional development needs and what actions could be taken to fill
professional development gaps. Therefore, I went back to Darling-Hammond et al. (2009), and
decided to relate the focus group responses to the four key principle of well-designed
professional development. This process began by just listing out each item, but some responses
fell in more than one category. Next, I moved to a more visual form. My original documents
were handwritten in lead and color pencil, but I recreated them digitally to increase their clarity
(Appendix D). Ideas and comments provided during the focus group were linked specifically to
the professional development key principles. This process allowed me to see easily areas where
we are doing well in designing our academies, as well as the areas where we could improve and
extend engagement. My critical colleagues and co-researchers reviewed this data for clarity and
to determine if there were additional linkages that I may have missed.
In addition to collecting data throughout the research process, I also collected ideas and
recorded reflections in my research journal. Alber (2011) writes, “Many students report that
taking a few minutes at the end of the day to record their thoughts was helpful as they
implemented their studies” (p. 70). I used my research journal to help keep track and identify,
recognize, and acknowledge values and interests that may affect my research. Subjective
awareness is beneficial to the qualitative researcher as preconceptions enable the researcher to

identify issues, situations, and recognize common themes (Ahern, 1999). Engaging in this
reflection process before, during, and after my research project helped me recognize my feelings
during the research process, identify potential conflicts, and reframe perceived roadblocks
(Ahern, 1999). My research journal helped me keep track of the research process, conversations,
and other needed documentation. Reflection is an important part of action research, and my
research journal provided a place to document and collected these reflections.
Findings
In the first cycle of data collection, all teachers stated that they would be very interested,
or somewhat interested, in attending other forestry educational programs. This information did
provide me with validation that teachers find forestry education a valuable resource for their
professional development. Teachers also stated that Facebook was the top online tool that they
would use to connect with SFTA participants and facilitators, which validates the Facebook page
we began in August 2011. A third of program providers surveyed use Facebook to facilitate
program topic conversations with participants before their programs begin, with the number
increasing to over half for post-program conversations. No program providers use Google+,
though it ranked second with our 2014 teacher participants. Additionally, no program providers
use online conferencing or webinars, which was selected by less than 15% of the North Carolina
teachers. The most often used tool to facilitate program topic conversations with program
providers was email, which I did not have as a tool for teachers to select.
Overall, a large majority of states are similar to our program with little face-to-face
follow-up with the program participants upon the conclusion of the program. A majority of face-
to-face follow-up takes place when teachers request individual assistance. Programs that do
require post-program follow-up provide either additional funds to teachers for their efforts or a

university intervenes and offers course credit when additional requirements, such as writing
lesson plans are completed. According to the survey data, eight states offer college credit for
their program, but there was little discussion about this process. One program did comment that
their program is not responsible for awarding college credits, which are handled directly through
a university. However, it appears from the survey that these are optional activities for program
participants, and it was not clear how this information was shared with other participants in the
program.
According to the focus group, the current structure of the SFTA does address every key
principle of well-designed professional development as discussed by Darling-Hammond et al.
(2009). My visual data layout shows me that we correlate the strongest to principle two, which
states that professional development should focus on student learning and address the teaching of
specific curriculum content. This is not a surprise to me, as I feel this is where our program is
the strongest. The program’s weakest area relates to principle four. This was as I expected as
principle four relates to building strong working relationships among teachers, and the purpose
of my research is to determine ways we can begin to build these relationships through extended
engagement.
The focus group data also helped to validate data from the 2014 SFTA participant survey
and the program provider survey. The idea of a group list-serve was very popular with the focus
group, was mentioned in the participant survey, and used most often by program providers.
During the focus group, the idea of an alumni weekend was discussed with much excitement
when listing ideas of how the SFTA could address the missing parts important for good
professional development. The program provider survey indicated that four states provide
reunion events for previous participants, and six programs ask past participants to serve as

facilitators in their program. The focus group teachers also discussed the idea of an SFTA
Ambassador program, which would allow past participants the opportunity to connect with
teachers in their area and help market the program.
Another interesting finding was related to online tools used to connect program
participants. Within our participant survey, 30% of teachers said they would find Edmodo as a
useful tool. However, the program provider survey indicated that no programs currently use this
tool. Within the focus group, the idea of an Edmodo site was highly received. Ample discussion
concentrated on this idea including ease of use, the ability to share documents within the
platform, some of the larger school districts encouraging professional development providers to
use Edmodo for monitoring participants’ use of information provided in training, and most
schools not blocking the site.
Validity and Ethics
My critical colleagues have been a sounding board throughout the project, helping me see
pathways I may have missed, posing questions for me to consider, and ensuring I stay on task.
My critical colleagues are from cohort 16 of the Ecological Teaching and Learning Masters
Program at Lesley University. Dr. Lily Fessenden, Assistant Professor at Lesley University and
faculty for the masters program, is one of my critical colleagues. My other two critical
colleagues, Lisa Canale and Ashley Outlaw, are students in the masters program. As a critical
colleague, Canale encouraged me to go deeper and helped me see that program changes could be
beneficial and provide new opportunities. Outlaw is a classroom teacher, therefore her
experiences and ideas of quality professional development were also valuable.
Since I was not dealing directly with students, I was not required to seek parental
permissions for my research. However, I did have to build and maintain the trust of teacher

participants throughout my project (Mills, 2001, p. 26). I accomplished this by ensuring that
throughout my research, the teachers and program providers I surveyed understood the extent of
my research project and gave them the opportunity to contact me with they had any concerns.
All surveys were anonymous, and comments in the focus group were not assigned to any
particular participant unless I was given specific permission for additional follow-up.
Mills (2011, p. 114) reminds us that it is challenging to remain objective and open when
looking at our data, which can lead to bias. At the beginning of the project, I was personally
focused on an online solution to extend the engagement with participants in the SFTA. This was
due to perceived barriers of limited time, funds, and ability to provide face-to-face engagement
with a limited staff. I had to recognize this bias early in my project when many of the online
tools that I felt would be easy to implement including blogs, webinars, and a dedicated wikispace
were not the ideas that the teachers were interested in pursuing. I was required to push my bias
aside to be open to new ideas, and remember that the goal was to provide professional
development for teachers in a way that engaged them.
For the whole project, my biggest limitation was having access to the teachers that
participate in the program since they are spread across the state. This is one reason why the
archival data from the summer 2014 program participants is valuable for my project. Early in
the research process, it was my intent to bring together a larger group of past participants to
provide some additional forestry-related training, then follow their incorporation of this materials
into their classroom. However, time constraints and other logistical issues prevented this
training from occurring. In retrospect however, I am not sure if this would have provided the
information I was really seeking to answer my research questions.

Another limitation is apparent in the program provider survey. There are some responses
I am uncertain about, and would have liked more clarification. I was surprised at the number of
programs that provide college credit, and wonder if college credit included continuing education
credits. One of the programs is an international program and is very different from the other
programs. I do not think this difference skewed my findings as responses to engagement
questions in the survey were all similar. In retrospect, I may not have included them in the
original survey pool in order to prevent any possible misrepresentation in my findings.
The focus group participation was another limitation. Due to limited funds, the focus
group was limited to one day, and in the central part of the state. North Carolina is a large state,
and the assumption was made that teachers further than two hours away would not be interested
in attending due to the additional travel time. The focus group was also held during the week.
These constraints reduced our pool of past participants based on travel time and the ability to be
gone from the classroom for a day. During the focus group, one group was unclear with the
instructions for the first question. Instead of listing what they considered important to
professional development, they related their answers to the SFTA. Despite giving verbal
instructions and writing the question on the board, they were still misdirected. My only concern
is that we may have missed some of their ideas that they consider key to professional
development. However, seeing how this question was not related directly to our program, my
co-researchers and I are not too concerned that their responses skewed findings relevant to the
project.
Implementation
Overall, I was thrilled with the outcome of my action research project. The work
validated the format and work we have done in the past years to make the program a strong

professional development opportunity for teachers. Additionally, I feel like I came away with
actions that can be implemented to reach a goal of extending engagement with useful activities
for teachers. As stated previously in my literature review, I felt our program was the weakest in
key principles one and four (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). The first principle relates to
ongoing professional development, and the fourth principle focuses on developing working
relationships among teachers. Teachers in the focus group felt that we were already addressing
the first principle; however, I feel our future actions will strengthen the correlations to both key
principles of professional development.
In the near-term, we have already begun the process of creating a list-serve for all the
SFTA past participants and facilitators. North Carolina State University provides this service for
campus faculty and staff, however the system is a bit cumbersome. Over 400 email addresses
have been uploaded and validated by the system. The next step is to invite past participants to
the list-serv with an email that includes user guidelines for the list-serve and how to opt-out and
not receive any email notifications. Email communications and list-serves were highly utilized
by the other program providers I surveyed, as well as being a suggested tool during the focus
group.
A second-near term action as a result from my research is the creation of an Edmodo site
for our program. The user interface is very similar to Facebook, but with more power to share
documents. I have created a personal account, and my co-researcher Dr. Moore has created a
program account and page. We are in the process of determining the best way to set-up our site
and add content before inviting others to join. Our goal is to have the site functional before our
summer 2015 programs.

A mid-term action involves the creation of the SFTA Ambassador program. An SFTA
Ambassador would promote the program to teachers in their county and be a point of contact to
assist program participants with classroom implementation as needed. Guidelines need to be
created to outline the expectations of the SFTA facilitators and the ambassadors. I have a strong
desire to tie this program into the evaluation system for North Carolina teachers and the six
standards that are measured during teacher evaluation (North Carolina Teacher Evaluation
Process, 2012). I foresee the leadership that the ambassadors demonstrate, the sharing and
gaining of content knowledge, and modeling of classroom application would address three of the
six standards.
A long-term action is the creation of an alumni gathering. Some other state programs
provide short gathering for their past participants, and the focus group was incredibly excited
about this possibility of meeting up with other teachers and sharing how they have incorporated
forestry education into their classrooms as well as learning new information. Data from our
summer 2014 participants demonstrates that charging $50 is the threshold for an additional
forestry program; therefore we will need to seek additional funding. I also want to investigate
the content and structure of alumni gatherings provided by other state forestry education
programs.
Other suggestions provided by the 2014 program evaluations, and validated by the focus
group, can be implemented with the creation and use of the email list-serve and Edmodo site.
Teachers were seeking videos and pictures to share with their students. Some of this information
is on the current Facebook site, but not everyone has an account. Our hope would be cross
posting on multiple sites would reach more educators. Some ideas require seeking additional

funding. This includes the creation of ready-made activity kits, providing the materials for one
new lesson during the academy, and supplies for checkout and use across the state.
Moving forward, I will be interested to see how these program additions affect the
perceptions of the SFTA as a professional development program. Will these actions equally
affect all teachers across North Carolina, or is it just a small snap shot of teachers’ perceptions in
one given year? Additionally, our program has been modified for summer 2015, with the
addition of one new location and cutting each location from five days to four. Will the
implementation of online tools overcome the loss of a day of programing? Will the loss of a
programming day require more focus on content knowledge during alumni gatherings, or can it
remain an opportunity for teachers to share their forestry curriculum successes?
Another area I plan to continue investigating are other state programs. I am especially
curious about the programs that offer college credit. In addition, when lesson plans are
submitted in the various programs, I wonder how they are vetted and shared with wider
audiences. As program facilitators, many of us know each other but we are not sharing our
information with each other. I believe sharing information across a network of program
providers can only make all of our programs stronger.
Presentation of Data
My current employment at North Carolina State University will provide me with many
opportunities to present my action research project. I am not aware of any systematic study of
forestry education programs like the SFTA, so I believe this information will be valuable to
many groups.

This report and my findings will be presented for the first time at Lesley University in
January of 2015 for the completion of the Ecological Teaching and Learning Master of Science
Degree. Other oral presentations may include:
 NC State University Department of Forestry and Environmental Resource’s
Seminar Series (Spring 2015)
 Project Learning Tree International Coordinators’ Conference (June 2015)
 Environmental Educators of North Carolina Annual Conference (September 2015)
 Society of American Foresters Conference (November 2015)
I also plan to submit my report and findings for publication to the Journal of Extension, a peer-
reviewed digital journal.
Conclusion
North Carolina has 18.6 million acres of forested land covering approximately 60% of the
state’s land mass (Brown and New, 2013). Sixty-eight percent of North Carolina counties are
more than 50% forested. Mitchel (2013) reported the forest industry benefits the North Carolina
economy by employing approximately 67,500 people and annually exporting $16.2 billion in
products. Additionally, the United States Forest Service reminds us that trees and forests are
important for urban areas as they strengthen the quality of social connections, provide areas to
recreate, help regulate temperatures and reduce energy use, improve air quality, increase
property values, and reduce storm run-off to decrease urban flooding (USDA, 2014). It is
evident that forests are a highly visible feature of North Carolina’s landscape, are important to
the economy, and vital for healthy ecosystems.
It is truly my pleasure to offer a professional development program that bolsters North
Carolina teachers’ understanding of the complexity of our forest ecosystems, and provide them

tools to take information they have learned back to students in their classrooms. The actions
based upon the findings of my action research will create positive changes within our program.
The action research process has left me renewed and reinvigorated to connect more wholly with
the program and excited to move forward, creating a stronger professional development program
for North Carolina teachers.

References
Alber, S. M. (2011). A toolkit for action research. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Ahern, K. J. (1999). Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qualitative Health Research, 9(3), 407-
411. doi: 10.1177/104973239900900309
Association for Experiential Education. (2014). What is experiential education?. Retrieved April
15, 2014, from http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003
Brown, M. J., New, B. D. (2013). North Carolina: 2011 forest inventory and analysis factsheet.
e-Science Update SRS–080. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Southern Research Station. Retrieved February 27, 2014, from
http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/ states/nc/NC%202011_e-SU-080.pdf
Bradbury, H. (2003). Sustaining the heart of action research(ers): An interview with Joanna
Macy. Action Research, 1(2), 208-223. doi: 10.1177/14767503030012005
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on
inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the
findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318. doi:10.1007/s10972-
012-9275-2
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based professional development: What does it
take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science?. International
Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 1947-1978. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.760209

Common Core State and NC Essential Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2014, from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/acre/standards/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Dana, N.F. (2013). Digging deeper into action research. Twin Oaks, CA: Corwin
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–
199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140.
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Kappan Magazine,
92(6), 68-71.
Dovetail Partners. (2013). 2014 U.S. Teachers’ Tours. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from
http://www.forestinfo.org/forestry_tours/2014
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202507 .
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional
development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690. doi:10.1002/tea.20069

Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, A. (2011). The impact of science content
and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based
instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534-551. doi:
10.1002/tea.20404
Licensure. (n.d.). Public Schools of North Carolina. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/licensure/update/
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. E. (2010). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Marrongelle, K., Sztajn, P. & Smith, M. (2013). Scaling up professional development in an era
of common state standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 202-211. doi:
10.1177/0022487112473838
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. D. Wright (Ed.). White River Junction,
VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Mitchel, P. (2013, August 1). North Carolina’s forest products industry is an economic engine.
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/wpe/2013/08/01/north-
carolinas-forest-products-industry-is-an-economic-engine/
Moore, S.E, Grantham, J., & Strnad, R.L. (2013). NC Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy.
Unpublished raw data.

NGSS. (2013, April). Appendix G – Crosscutting concepts. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix G Crosscutting Concepts
FINAL edited 4.10.13.pdf
North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process. (2012). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/effectiveness-model/ncees/instruments/teach-eval-
manual.pdf
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958. doi:
10.3102/0002831207308221
Public Schools of North Carolina. (2013, September). North Carolina School Improvement
Planning Implementation Guide. [Version 2.1]. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/councils/lea/previous/templates/sip-guide.pdf
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Preface, Introduction. Handbook of action research: Concise
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schmuck, R. A. (2006). Practical action research for change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Tournaki, E., Lyublinskaya, I., & Carolan, B. (2011). An Ongoing Professional Development
Program and Its Impact on Teacher Effectiveness. The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 299-
315. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2011.604711
Uhl, C. (2013). Developing ecological consciousness: The end of separation (2nd ed.). Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

USDA. (2013, October 1). Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from
http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/
USDA. (2014, January 9). Trees for people, urban forestry 101. Retrieved from
http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/treesforpeople.shtml

Appendix A
Teacher forestry education program providers, as compiled by Dovetail Partners (2013)
State Contact email Program Name
AR Rob Beadel rbeadel@arkforests.org Arkansas Teacher Conservation Tour
CA unlisted info@forestryinstitute.org
California Forestry Institute for
Teachers (FIT)
FL Chelsea Parke chelsea.parker@freshfromfloridacom Florida Forestry Teachers Tour
GA Carla Rapp carla@gfagrow.org
Georgia Teacher Conservation
Workshop
ID Michele Youngquist plt@idahoforests.org
Idaho Sustainable Forestry Tour for
Teachers & Counselors
IN Donna Rogler plt@dnr.in.gov
Indiana Natural Resources Teachers
Institute
LA Whitney Wallace unlisted Louisiana Forestry Teachers' Tour
ME unlisted mtf@gwi.net Forests of Maine Teachers' Tours
MI Bill Botti miforest@acd.net
Michigan Sustainable Forestry
Teacher Program
MN Paula Frings paula@mavenperspectives.com
Minnesota Forestry Education and
Awareness Program (FEAP)
MS Anna Kendall akendall@msforestry.net
Mississippi Teachers Conservation
Workshops
NC Renee Strnad renee_strnad@ncsu.edu
North Carolina Sustainable Forestry
Teachers' Academy (NC SFTA)
OR Rick Zenn rzenn@worldforestry.org
Oregon International Educator's
Institute
SC Julie Leary julie@scforestry.org
South Carolina Teachers' Tour:
Teaching Sustainable Forestry in
Environmental Education

State Contact email Program Name
TX unlisted tfa@texasforestry.org
Texas Teachers' Conservation
Institute
VA Bill Worrell bworrell@vt.edu
Virginia Trees-to-Products Summer
Teachers' Program
WI Sarah Gilbert sarah.gilbert@uwsp.edu
Wisconsin - A Forest for Every
Classroom
WI Sarah Gilbert sarah.gilbert@uwsp.edu
Wisconsin - From Forest to Finish: A
community based learning retreat for
educators

Appendix B
2014 Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy
Post Academy Evaluation – Asheville
Thank you for your participation in the North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers' Academy!
I am in the process of beginning an action research project centered on the Sustainable Forestry Teachers'
Academy as part of the Ecological Teaching and Learning Masters Program through Lesley University.
My research question is: How can I create a meaningful continued engagement experience for the
teachers across North Carolina annually attending our Sustainable Forestry Teachers' Academies?
As part of my project, I will be using some of the data collected in this program evaluation to help create
post-academy engagement experiences in Fall 2014. All responses will remain anonymous throughout
my project.
If you have any questions or concerns during the completion of this program evaluation, please let me
know. I also encourage you to contact me afterwards if you have any concerns.
Renee Strnad
Environmental Educator - Extension Forestry
NC State University
renee_strnad@ncsu.edu
919-515-5518
Name (optional): ___________________________________________________
Attended a previous Academy/Tour? ___ No ___ Yes.
If no, please DO NOT use the Post-Academy #2 scale.
1. Please rate your OPINION of forestry in NC. (Circle the number of your choice.)
Extremely
favorable
Extremely
unfavorable
Pre-Academy 5 4 3 2 1 0
Post-Academy #1 5 4 3 2 1 0
2. Please rate your KNOWLEDGE of forestry in NC. (Circle the number of your choice.)
Significant
knowledge
No
Knowledge

3. Please rate how your CHOICE of forest products to purchase has changed by participating in the
Academy. (Circle the number of your choice.)
Changed
significantly Unchanged
4. Please rate your LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE that the forest products industry operates
responsibly. (Circle the number of your choice.)
Confident
Not
Confident
5. Please RATE your COMFORT LEVEL TO TEACH forestry topics in your classroom. (Circle
the number of your choice.)
Extremely
comfortable
Not
Comfortable
6. Please RATE your experience at each site based on the value to you as an educator. (Circle the
number of your choice.)
Extremely
valuable
No
value
Forest History
Presentation
5 4 3 2 1 0
Biltmore Forestry and
Wildlife Tour
5 4 3 2 1 0
Forest Measurements
Exercise
5 4 3 2 1 0
Bent Creek Tour 5 4 3 2 1 0
Urban Forestry
Presentation
5 4 3 2 1 0
Urban Forestry Tour 5 4 3 2 1 0
Jackson Paper Mfg.
Tour
5 4 3 2 1 0
Cradle of Forestry Visit 5 4 3 2 1 0
GIS/GPS Presentation
and Exercise
5 4 3 2 1 0
Columbia Forest
Products Tour
5 4 3 2 1 0
Parton Lumber Co. Tour 5 4 3 2 1 0

7. Please RATE the concepts below based on how likely you are to incorporate the concept into
your classroom. (Circle the number of your choice.)
Definitely
Will
Not
Likely
Myths vs. Reality in forestry 4 3 2 1 0
Importance of the forest products industry to
our state
4 3 2 1 0
History of North Carolina’s forests 4 3 2 1 0
State of North Carolina’s forests 4 3 2 1 0
Principles of forest ecology 4 3 2 1 0
Forest measurements 4 3 2 1 0
Forestry technology 4 3 2 1 0
Importance of forest management 4 3 2 1 0
Techniques of forest management 4 3 2 1 0
Advantages of wood products versus
substitutes
4 3 2 1 0
Career opportunities in forestry 4 3 2 1 0
Use of biomass for energy 4 3 2 1 0
Forest wildlife 4 3 2 1 0
Importance of forest products to our daily
lives 4 3 2 1 0
8. If you answered “not likely” for any of these concepts, why not? (Check all that apply.)
___ not enough time
___ not part of the curriculum
___ not confident
___ other: (please describe)_______________________________________________
9. Which of the following materials will help you incorporate forestry into your classroom?
Project Learning Tree training ____ Lesson plans ____
Academy notebook ____ CD ROM ____
Other _______________________________________________________________
10. As a teacher, how will you use the information you learned during the Academy in your
classroom? Be specific.
11. How interested are you in attending other forestry educational programs?
(Please check one.)
___ very interested
___ somewhat interested
___ not interested

12. Please RATE your interest, based on the value to you as an educator. (Circle the number of
your choice.)
Extremely
Interested
Extremely
NOT
Interested
I would be interested in
participating in follow-up
programing with other teachers
that have attended the
Sustainable Forestry Teachers'
Academy.
5 4 3 2 1 0
opportunities to share successes
and struggles of incorporating
forestry education into my
classroom with other teachers
that have attended the
Sustainable Forestry Teachers'
Academy.
5 4 3 2 1 0
I would be interested in a one-
day workshop to build upon
concepts learned this week.
5 4 3 2 1 0
participating in webinars about
forestry education in the
classroom.
5 4 3 2 1 0
I would be interested in a
forestry education web site or
blog.
5 4 3 2 1 0
curriculum writing workshops.
5 4 3 2 1 0
I would be interested in being a
part of a Forestry Professional
Learning Community.
5 4 3 2 1 0
I would be interested in using
technology to bring quest
speakers into my classroom.
5 4 3 2 1 0
I would be interested in guest
speakers coming to my class.
5 4 3 2 1 0
13. What are the online tools you would use to connect with Sustainable Forestry Teachers’ Academy
participants and facilitators? (Check all that apply.)
___ Facebook ___ Blog
___ Edmodo ___ LinkedIn
___ Twitter ___ Digital Newsletter
___ Google+ ___ Online Conferencing/Webinar
___ WikiSpace ___ Other
(please describe)________________________________

14. Do you have other ideas not previously mentioned that would help you incorporate forestry
education into your classroom?
15. If there were a fee to attend a one-day post-academy workshop, how much would you be willing
to pay? (Check all that apply)
___ I would not pay
___ ≤ $25
___ ≤ $50
___ ≤ $100
___ ≥ $100
___ Would be based on what my school would pay
16. How will you personally use the new knowledge you have acquired, outside of your classroom?
(Check all that apply.)
___ to make decisions about my own or family forest
___ share it with friends, family and others
___ to make more informed choices when buying forest products
___ other: (please describe)_______________________________________________
17. What did you learn this week that surprised you most?
18. Would you recommend this program to others? Why or why not?
If you can, please give us the name, school and email address of a teacher you would like to
recommend for next year’s academy:
19. How could we improve the program?
20. How did you find out about the program? (Please check only one.)
___ through an internet search
___ at the NCSTA conference
___ referral by previous participant
___ through a listserve which one? ________________________________
___ other: (please describe)___________________________________________

21. What is the primary reason that you attended the Academy? (Please check only one.)
___ I need continuing education credits.
___ I teach some forestry now, but want to do more.
___ I would like to begin teaching forestry.
___ A previous participant said I should attend.
___ I wanted to visit Asheville.
___ I’m working on my EE certification.
___ other: (please describe)___________________________________________
Grade(s) and subject(s) you teach: __________________________________________________
Number of students you teach per year ____
Type of school: ___ Public ___ Private ___ Homeschool
Location of school: ___ Mountains ___ Piedmont ___Coastal Plain
My school is ___ Rural ___ Urban ___ Suburban
Do you own forested land? ___ Yes ___ No
Thank you for attending!

Appendix C
Hello ${m://FirstName}
Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://SurveyURL}
Building upon a presentation I co-presented at the 2014 Project Learning Tree Conference in
Michigan, I am moving forward with a program provider survey. As mentioned at the
conference, this survey serves two purposes. The first is for us, as program providers, to begin
understanding how all our programs are formatted and to help learn from each other. The second
purpose is related to my masters work at Lesley University.
The basis of my project is the North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers' Academy. My
research question is: How can I create a meaningful continued engagement experience for the
teachers across North Carolina annually attending our Sustainable Forestry Teachers'
Academies? As part of my project, I am surveying the program providers of similar teacher
forestry education programs across the United States. I hope to learn more about the variety of
programs offered, and how your programs provide meaningful engagement with program
participants upon the conclusion of your program.
This survey contains 20 questions, and should take about 15 minutes to complete. By
proceeding with this survey, you are agreeing that your information may be used and shared in
my project, with other program providers, and may be published. All responses will remain
anonymous throughout the report out of the data. At the end of the survey, there will be an
opportunity to indicate if you would like a summary of the results. The survey will remain open
until October 8, 2014.
If you have any questions or concerns during the completion of this program evaluation, please
let me know. I also encourage you to contact me afterwards if you have any question or
concern. My contact information is below.
Thank you in advance for participating in my survey.
Renee Strnad
NC State University
919-515-5518
Follow the link to opt out of future emails:
${l://OptOutLink?d=Click here to unsubscribe}

Extended Forestry Education Programs for Classroom Teachers
Q1 Extended Forestry Education Programs for Classroom Teachers: Provider Survey
I am completing an action research project as part of the Ecological Teaching and Learning
Masters Program through Lesley University in Cambridge, MA. The basis of my project is the
North Carolina Sustainable Forestry Teachers' Academy. My research question is: How can I
create a meaningful continued engagement experience for the teachers across North Carolina
annually attending our Sustainable Forestry Teachers' Academies?
As part of my project, I am surveying the program providers of similar teacher forestry education
programs across the United States. I hope to learn more about the variety of programs offered,
and how your programs provide meaningful engagement with program participants upon the
conclusion of your program. This survey contains 20 questions, and should take about
15 minutes to complete.
By proceeding with this survey, you are agreeing that your information may be used and shared
in my project, with other program providers, and may be published. All responses will remain
anonymous throughout the report out of the data. At the end of the survey, there will be an
opportunity to indicate if you would like a summary of the results. If you have any questions or
concerns during the completion of this program evaluation, please let me know. I also encourage
you to contact me afterwards if you have any question or concern.
Renee Strnad
NC State University
919-515-5518

The following questions relate to the structure of your program
Q2 In which state does your program take place?
 Alabama
 Alaska
 Arizona
 Arkansas
 California
 Colorado
 Connecticut
 Delaware
 District of Columbia
 Florida
 Georgia
 Hawaii
 Idaho
 Illinois
 Indiana
 Iowa
 Kansas
 Kentucky
 Louisiana
 Maine
 Maryland
 Massachusetts
 Michigan
 Minnesota
 Mississippi
 Missouri
 Montana
 Nebraska
 Nevada
 New Hampshire
 New Jersey
 New Mexico
 New York
 North Carolina
 North Dakota
 Ohio
 Oklahoma
 Oregon
 Pennsylvania
 Puerto Rico

 Rhode Island
 South Carolina
 South Dakota
 Tennessee
 Texas
 Utah
 Vermont
 Virginia
 Washington
 West Virginia
 Wisconsin
 Wyoming
 I do not reside in the United States
Q3 What is the name of your program?
Q4 What month(s) does your program take place? (Select all that apply)
 January
 February
 March
 April
 May
 June
 July
 August
 September
 October
 November
 December
Q5 How many times a year do you offer your program?
 Once per year
 Twice per year
 Three times per year
 More than three times per year

Q6 How many days is your program?
 One
 Two
 Three
 Four
 Five
 Six
 More than six
Q7 Is your program residential?
 Yes
 No
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To How many overnights?
Answer If Is your program residential? Yes Is Selected
Q8 How many overnight stays for teachers does your program require?
 One
 Two
 Three
 Four
 Five
 Six
 More than six
Q9 Maximum number of teachers annually accepted to your program

Q10 For this survey, I am using the term Key Facilitators to represent entities that set the agenda,
handle logistics, manage the registration process, and take a lead on program facilitation. Which
organizations within your state have the role of Key Facilitators for your most recent program?
(Check all that apply)
 State Forestry Agency
 State Wildlife Agency
 State Education Department
 State Forestry Association / Landowner Group
 State Conservation Organization
 State Environmental Education Association
 State Project Learning Tree Program (if not included in other agency)
 State SFI Committee
 Forest Product Company
 University / College
 Federal Forest Service
 Other Non‐Government Organization
 Other
If Other Non‐Government Organi... Is Selected, Then Skip To Please name other non‐government
orga...If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To Please name other agency that serves ...
Answer If For this survey, I am using the term Key Facilitators to represent entities that set the agenda,...
Other Non‐Government Organization Is Selected
Q11 Please name other non-government organization that serves as a Key Facilitator for your
program
Answer If For this survey, I am using the term Key Facilitators to represent entities that set the agenda,...
Other Is Selected
Q12 Please name other agency that serves as a Key Facilitator for your program

Q13 For this survey, I am using the term Program Sponsor to represent entities that financially
sponsor your program. Which organizations within your state have the role of Program Sponsor
for your most recent program? (Check all that apply)
 Federal Education
 Charitable Foundation
 For‐profit business (not forest product related)
 Other
If Other Non‐Government Organi... Is Selected, Then Skip To Please name other non‐government
orga...If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To Please name other agency that serves ...
Answer If For this survey, I am using the term Program Sponsor to represent entities that financially
spons... Other Non‐Government Organization Is Selected
Q14 Please name other non-government organization that serves as a Program Sponsor for your
program
Answer If For this survey, I am using the term Program Sponsor to represent entities that financially
spons... Other Is Selected
Q15 Please name other agency that serves as a Program Sponsor for your program

Q16 Which organizations within your state provide in-kind support for your most recent
program? (Check all that apply)
 No in‐kind provided
 Federal Education
 Charitable Foundation
 For‐profit business (not forest product related)
 Other
Q17 What was the budget for your most recent program (not including salaries)?
Q18 Do participants pay to attend the program?
 Yes
 No
 Deposit Only
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To How much do your participants pay to ...If Deposit Only Is Selected, Then
Skip To How much is the deposit participants ...
Answer If Do participants pay to attend the program?   Yes Is Selected
Q19 How much do your participants pay to attend your program?
Answer If Do participants pay to attend the program?   Deposit Only Is Selected
Q20 How much is the deposit participants pay for your program?

The following questions relate to the content of your program
Q21 What grade level of teachers do you accept? (Check all that apply)
 PreK
 Kindergarten
 1st
 2nd
 3rd
 4th
 5th
 6th
 7th
 8th
 9th
 10th
 11th
 12th
 Pre‐Service
 Administrators
 College‐level Instructors
 Non‐classroom educators
Q22 What topics are covered during the duration of your program? (Check all that apply)
 Silviculture
 Forest Ecology
 Wildlife Habitat
 Endangered Species
 Water Quality
 Recreation
 Forest History
 Sustainability
 Urban Forestry
 GIS / GPS Technology
 Forest Ownership
 Soils
 Forest Product Production
 Forest Measurements
 Climate
 Forest Economics
 Other
If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To Please list other topics that are cov...

Answer If What topics are covered during the duration of your program? (Check all that apply) Other Is
Selected
Q23 Please list other topics that are covered during your program?
Q24 Do you use any of the following online tools to facilitate program topic conversations:
Before Your Program After Your Program
Facebook  
Edmodo  
Twitter  
Google+  
WikiSpace  
Blog  
LinkedIn  
Digital Newsletter  
Online Conferencing /
Webinar
 
Email  
None of the Above  
Other  
If Other ‐ Before Your Program Is Selected, Then Skip To Please list the other type of online ...If Other ‐
After Your Program Is Selected, Then Skip To Please list the other type of online ...
Answer If Do you use any of the following online tools to facilitate program topic conversations: Other ‐
Before Your Program Is Selected
Q25 Please list the other type of online tools you use to facilitate program topic conversations
before your program
Answer If Do you use any of the following online tools to facilitate program topic conversations: Other ‐
After Your Program Is Selected
Q26 Please list the other type of online tools you use to facilitate program topic conversations
after your program

Q27 Do you provide training in any of the following environmental education curricula during
your program? (Check all that apply)
 Project Learning Tree
 Project Wild
 Project WET
 Project Food, Land, and People
 Leopold Project
 GLOBE
 Other
If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To Please list other environmental educa...
Answer If Do you provide training in any of the following environmental education curricula during your
program? (Check all that apply)   Other Is Selected
Q28 Please list other environmental education curriculum training you provide during your
program
Q29 Do you offer professional development credits? (Check all that apply)
 Teacher continuing education credits at the state level
 Environmental Education credits at the state level (for state EE certification programs)
 College Credit
 No credits offered
 Other
If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To What other type of professional devel...
Answer If Do you offer professional development credits? (Check all that apply) Other Is Selected
Q30 What other type of professional development credits do you provide?
Q31 During your program, how many minutes do you specifically allot for:
______ Lesson Planning
______ Curriculum Writing
______ Discussing classroom implementation with teachers of similar grades and/or subjects
Q32 Upon completion of your program, do you ask program participants to (Check all that
apply):
 Complete a program evaluation
 Submit written lesson plan / unit plan
 Participate in a follow‐up face‐to‐face session
 Engage with other participants through digital technology
 None of the above
 Other
If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To What other type of action do you ask ...

Answer If Upon completion of your program, do you ask program participants to (check all that apply):
Other Is Selected
Q33 What other type of action do you ask programs participants to complete upon completion of
your program?
Q34 Do you provide any face-to-face follow-up with program participants upon the completion
of your program? (Check all that apply)
 Classroom visits
 Bringing participants back together for 'reunion' meetings or events
 Providing an 'advanced' program for former program participants
 Individual follow‐up upon teacher request
 Have participants serve as a program facilitator in subsequent years
 Other
If Other Is Selected, Then Skip To What other ways do you provide face‐t...
Answer If Do you provide any face‐to‐face follow‐up with program participants upon the completion of
your program? (Check all that apply) Other Is Selected
Q35 What other ways do you provide face-to-face follow-up with program participants upon the
completion of your program?
Q39 Is there anything else you would like to share about your program that would help me with
my research questions that has not been covered here?
Q36 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you would not mind me
contacting you with any follow-up questions or you would like to be notified of the survey
results, please leave your contact information below. Your survey answers will not be tied to
this data, and will only be used by me (Renee) to contact you directly.
First name
Last name
Email Address
Phone

Appendix D
Focus Group Data Visualization

Strnad_FinalReport

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Strnad_FinalReport

Similar to Strnad_FinalReport (20)

Strnad_FinalReport