1. Overview of Findings from 2009-10 Students Instruments/scales IRBs and consent process – Principal letter – Parent Consent – Student Assent 1

2. Water Resources: Preliminary Results Student Demographics – The fall simulations had a total of 506 consenting participants. – The population consisted of 7th & 8th grade Simulation A 294 students Simulation B 241 students 2

3. Students Connecticut and Chicago students 3

4. Student ethnicity breakdown 4

5. Connecticut Students 5

6. Chicago Students 6

7. Means and Standard Deviations 7 Paired Samples Statistics Scales Mean Std. Deviation Science Interest 1SciInt1 Pre2.748.770 SciInt1 Post2.741.812 Science Interest 2SciInt2 Pre1.549.590 SciInt2 Post1.587.612 Technology Use*Tech Pre4.034.711 Tech Post4.118.724 Science TasksSciTask1 Pre4.130.727 SciTask1 Post4.091.793 Science Tasks 1SciTask2 Pre3.642.823 SciTask2 Post3.582.862 Writing Tasks*Write Pre3.692.872 Write Post3.779.843 Social Studies*SocStud Pre3.472.904 SocStud Post3.344.908 Social Perspective TakingSocPerTake Pre3.202.945 SocPerTake Post3.206.856

8. Gains Writing ScoresTechnology Use Score 8

9. Current Status Analyses of the Surveys Items Creation of scales Differences based on: – Location – Race – Gender – Access to computers What students reported learning What students reported wanting to change Other Analyses Writing prompts Emails – 11,545 messages sent! Conference postings Issue area performance Others 9