Thank you for your comments and questions, Brian!

We brokered teams for participants who joined the program without a teammate already in mind. This was typically done by targeted recruitment to teachers or local conservation organizations in specific geographic areas, depending on whether we were looking teen or adult partners. Many, though certainly not all, of our adult partners were affiliated with land trusts or other environmental groups (town conservation commissions, non-profits such as Audubon, etc.). Because of their prior connections, they were often valuable in generating ideas for their team's community conservation projects. Our recruitment approach evolved over time as we developed relationships and built trust with educators and organizations who would help share information about the program to students, members, volunteers, and the like.

While we don't yet have a publication that showcases the wide diversity of our participants' projects, our Frontiers in Education paper includes exemplar projects that illustrate the four design principles and communication pillars we found critical to facilitating collaborative intergenerational environmental efforts.

Thanks for the video and for sharing your paper. This is helpful for us in developing our relationships with community partners.

Thank you for joining the discussion, Billy!

I'll let my colleagues who developed the program before I joined the team add their responses, but would like to say that we're currently analyzing data from participant surveys and structured interviews to understand the different impacts the program has had, on both the individual and community level, in addition to the environment. For me, it's interesting to think about the role mentoring has on not only the mentee, but also the mentor.

As far as technology integration, I think one of our biggest challenges was running the program virtually during the pandemic, when we were separated physically and couldn't easily troubleshoot technology problems that our participants experienced. In that same situation, though, we were given an opportunity to incorporate new technologies (or tech in a new way) that fostered, for example, a deeper connection to place.

I'll just add on the technology integration side, some of the obstacles we faced and how we tried to solve them in later iterations of our workshops.

We were relying on free mobile apps geared toward data collection to help remove any potential barriers to participation (and provided mobile devices if participants did not have them).  The challenge is that free apps are not always well-supported and thus we had to change some of the apps we used as we went along. On the positive side, we were always on the hunt for newer, better apps, which allowed us to integrate new technologies as we became aware of them.

Another issue we had was deciding which technologies to expose participants to and train how to use without overwhelming them. We wanted to give participants a sense of the range of projects they could pursue and the range of technologies available to help them, but If we tried to pack too many options into the workshop we would have lost them. What we evolved to was training folks in the use of two primary apps, a "breadcrumb" trail app & a customizable data collection app. We would supplement that with a tech showcase session that was a bit like speed-dating.  We would spread out with different technology stations and give quick overviews of what they could do as teams rotated through.  This way we were able to expose participants to more "possibilities" and if they were interested we would follow-up with more in-depth training on how to use them either through videos, online materials or one-on-one sessions. That seemed to lead to more diverse project ideas.

David I see that you work for Extension. Just wondering is there a UCONN 4-H connection with this project?

Hi Beatriz!

I appreciate your feedback and curiosity.

Some participants did experience challenges navigating intergenerational partnerships, often related to communication and social/hierarchical norms. My colleagues in the Neag School of Education found that successful teen-adult collaborations that could lead to promotion of STEM identification were dependent on: (1) effective communication for establishing and strengthening relationships between the intergenerational partners, (2) adult promotion of student voice and corresponding student agency – active participation in decision making, and (3) alignment of program expectations and the participants’ lifelong learning goals.

Our group identified four communication pillars that facilitate collaborative team partnership norms that resist traditional hierarchical teen-adult relationships. We incorporated these communication pillars into program materials and activities to better support productive interactions among intergenerational teammates.

Hi Connie,

Thank you for your comments and questions!

As program manager for CTP, one of my responsibilities was helping identify and connect our participants to conservation groups/organizations in their community, including local boards and commissions. It takes time and energy to establish those connections. My colleagues and I have spent years building relationships with decision-makers in both municipalities and non-profits. I would say that we're fortunate to live and work in a small state; however, there are over 150 towns in Connecticut, each with their own local government, which means a LOT of boards and commissions. We're grateful to have developed strong partnerships with land trusts throughout the state, many of which are eager to work with and support youth involvement in conservation.

Regarding apps used in projects, I absolutely recommend Epicollect! It has so many different applications and is free (for both iOS and Android) and very user-friendly (they have a fantastic user guide). For geospatial tech, we encourage ArcGIS Online (many free services available), especially StoryMaps - a super engaging way to create and share stories through text, interactive maps, and other multimedia content.

Nicole - Thanks so much for your guidance on apps. I plan to check into them for a project we are launching. also thanks for your thoughts on identifying local conservation groups. we work closely with a few but want to be able to guide other schools (located in different watersheds from the one we work in) to know how to identify relevant local conservation groups. you're right that it takes time to nurture relationships. for people who haven't yet ventured into conservation work, I mainly want to provide some help in how to get started to identify relevant CBOs to work with. your project and response were both very helpful.  thanks.

Thank you for adding to the discussion, Marijke!

That's an interesting question. We're in the process of analyzing participant survey and interview data and I think we have evidence of social-emotional connectedness of participants beyond the project-specific interactions. For example, one past participant said, "I learned a lot of things. I mean, I have many identities and responsibilities. I'm a person, I have a job, I have a husband, I have children. And it helped me in all those, in all those ways. I loved the interaction with the kids and I think it helped me. It was a valuable tool to help me as a person, and then also, I think I helped them as well. We had great relationships that were of equal sharing. It wasn't the adult, the kid. That's the thing that I really came away with."

Your comment made me think that working to intentionally build empathy between intergenerational partners could have real value/impact on both a personal and community level.