$2.5M NSF Grant to Study Online STEM Course Outcomes
City University of New York (Christopher Rhoads co-PI on new grant)
Neag School Part of $2.25M NSF Grant for ‘Environment Corps’ Project

Editor’s Note: The following piece was originally published by the UConn Extension blog at the College of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources. Insights from Neag School Professor Todd Campbell have been incorporated.
UConn has received a $2.25 million grant from the National Science Foundation in support of a project entitled “Redefining Public Engagement at the University of Connecticut: Studying the Impact of an Innovative STEM Service Learning Model on the University Community.” The project is aimed at expanding and studying a new public engagement program that combines teaching, service learning, and Extension outreach.
The program is called the Environment Corps and focuses on using STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) skills to address important environmental issues like climate adaptation, brownfields remediation, and stormwater management at the municipal level. Environment Corps combines the familiar elements of classroom instruction, service learning, and UConn Extension’s work with communities in a unique way that allows students to develop STEM skills and get “real-world” experience as preparation for the workforce, while communities receive help in responding to environmental mandates that they often lack the resources to address on their own. Faculty from the Neag School of Education will lead the research; Professor Todd Campbell is a co-principal investigator.
“We are working to better understand how innovative instructional models and partnerships like this can be institutionalized, particularly given our status as a land-grant university.”
— Professor Todd Campbell
“The entire team is excited and gratified that NSF has selected us for funding. This will allow us to expand and better coordinate our efforts, and create something that will hopefully be part of the University’s public engagement portfolio for a long time,” says Extension educator Chet Arnold, principal investigator of the grant and the director of UConn’s Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR).
Arnold notes that the Environment Corps project is built on an extensive partnership at UConn. It includes faculty from four schools and colleges in five departments: Natural Resources and the Environment, Extension, Geography, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Curriculum and Instruction in the Neag School. In addition, the project involves four university centers, all three environmental major programs, and the Office of the Provost.
The Environment Corps or “E-Corps” came out of a three-year pilot project originally funded by the UConn Provost’s Office in 2016. That project developed the Climate Corps, an undergraduate instructional effort focused on local, town-level impacts of, and responses to, climate change. Designed to draw students from the environmental studies, environmental sciences, and environmental engineering majors, the Climate Corps debuted in the fall of 2017. The program consists of a class in the fall with a strong focus on local challenges and issues, followed by a “practicum” spring semester during which students, formed into teams and matched with towns, work on projects. Partnerships with the towns are built on the long-term relationships that have developed between local officials and Extension educators from CLEAR and the Connecticut Sea Grant program.
Climate Corps was a hit with students and towns, and in 2018 spun off a second STEM offering, this one focusing on brownfields (contaminated sites) redevelopment. The Brownfields Corps, taught by the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, debuted in the fall of 2018. With the NSF funding, there will now be a third “Corps,” the Stormwater Corps, which is under development and will help towns deal with the many requirements of the state’s newly strengthened general stormwater permit.
The NSF-funded project involves expansion and coordination of the three programs, but also has a major focus on studying the impact of the E-Corps approach on students, faculty, participating towns, and the UConn community.

“We couldn’t be more ecstatic to work with this interdisciplinary group,” says Campbell of the Neag School. “Our project draws on research focused on further developing and refining the E-Corps instructional model — a model designed to support undergraduate students engaged in helping communities meet real-world environmental challenges. At the same time, we are working to better understand how innovative instructional models and partnerships like this can be institutionalized, particularly given our status as a land-grant university.”
The Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning will take the lead in working with University administrators and faculty to promote further expansion of the model.
The local, real-world focus of the E-Corps model is getting an enthusiastic response from students. One student wrote: “Climate Corps had a huge influence on me, and for a while I wasn’t super excited about the sorts of jobs I’d be qualified to do … but having this experience opened so many doors for me and exposed me to so many different things I could do. I’m really excited to start my new job because I’ve been able to combine a career with something I find super interesting.” Fall classes are filled to capacity for the Climate and Brownfields Corps.
“With two years of the Climate Corps and a year of the Brownfields Corps under our belts I think we can say that both the students and the communities are benefitting from this program,” says Sea Grant Extension Educator Juliana Barrett, a Climate Corps instructor. “As a Land and Sea Grant University UConn has a critical mission to engage the community, and the E-Corps project gives us a new, exciting model for doing that.”
For more information, visit the Climate Corps and Connecticut Brownfield Initiative websites. Learn more about the grant on the NSF website.
Stefanie Dion Jones contributed to this republished story.
Related Stories:
2020 Alumni Awards Nomination Process Open Through Oct. 31

Today through Thursday, Oct. 31, 2019, the Neag School of Education is accepting nominations for the 2020 Neag School Annual Alumni Awards. Go online today to nominate deserving Neag School alumni in the following six categories:
- Outstanding Higher Education Professional – A faculty member or administrator at a college or university
- Outstanding School Superintendent – A leader of a public or private school system
- Outstanding School Administrator – A principal, assistant principal, central office administrator or director
- Outstanding School Educator – Pre-K through 12th grade educators, including classroom, reading, technology, ELL, school counselors, and school psychologists
- Outstanding Professional – A professional working within the public or private sector/
- Outstanding Early Career Professional – A promising young professional in the first five years of his/her career in education
Submit your online nomination for the 2020 Neag School Alumni Awards
Nominations Accepted: Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019 — Thursday, Oct. 31, 2019 (5 p.m. EST)
Award recipients will be formally recognized in March 2020 at the Neag School’s 22nd Annual Alumni Awards Celebration.
(Photos by Roger Castonguay)
Related Stories:
- Seven Outstanding Alumni Honored at 21st Annual Alumni Awards Celebration
- Photo Album: 2019 Alumni Awards Celebration
- Video Profiles: 2019 Alumni Awards Recipients
Local Educator Brings Robotics Into Math Classrooms With Help of Donor
Editor’s Note: Applications for the 2020 Rogers Fund will open in mid-September. Learn more about the Rogers Educational Innovation Fund.

Dwight Sharpe, recipient of the Neag School’s Rogers Educational Innovation Fund in 2018, has always been intrigued by science and technology.
“Being able to play with things and understand how things work,” Sharpe says, is what engaged him as a child; remote-controlled cars were among his favorite toys. “That’s the tie between mathematics and technology: recognizing there is so much math that goes into creating these electronic-type devices.”
At Woodrow Wilson Middle School in Middletown, Conn., where he was teaching math in 2017, Sharpe had come across some robots stored in the school’s technology office, which sparked an idea: using robots in the classroom.
With this in mind, he applied for the 2018 Rogers Educational Innovation Fund, a $5,000 award designated by Neag School Professor Emeritus Vincent Rogers and his late wife, Chris, in support of innovative projects carried out by Connecticut teachers at the elementary or middle-school level.
Sharpe’s project, entitled “Accessing and Engaging in Mathematics Through Robotics and Computer Programming,” seeks “to explore and determine how robotics and computer programming can be embedded into middle school instruction to improve student engagement and achievement.” It was selected from among more than 40 submissions.
“At the end of the day, the new project was about engagement. It was about integrating something into the classroom that hasn’t been there.”
— Dwight Sharpe, 2018 Rogers Award Recipient
New Technology Leads to New Approach
“As an eighth-grade mathematics teacher at Woodrow Wilson Middle School, I often find it difficult to actively engage my struggling learners so that they are able to master mathematical concepts,” Sharpe had explained in his original project proposal.
This year, in an effort to improve mathematics performance for all students, Sharpe has been collaborating with his grade-level colleagues and curriculum supervisor to provide more personalized instruction to students. In Middletown, elementary schools are in their fourth year of implementing Guided Math implementation, an approach that allows small groups of students situated around the classroom to work together on specific curriculum standards. The schools have seen a positive impact on student mastery and performance measures as a result of this approach to math instruction; Woodrow Wilson Middle hopes to replicate this success with their own implementation of Guided Math.
“Because many students have not had significant success in mathematics classes and assessments, they have developed a fixed mindset in which they believe they cannot independently solve mathematical problems without the scaffolding and support from me,” Sharpe says. “Many students are disengaged, frustrated, and unwilling to take risks in the classroom that allow for learning and success.”
While the classroom model at the school had long centered on students sitting at their desks while teachers lectured, Sharpe saw an opportunity to transform that with his robotics and computer programming project.
“At the end of the day, the new project was about engagement,” he says. “It was about integrating something into the classroom that hasn’t been there.”
Instead of the teacher speaking in front of the classroom, there are now stations throughout the classroom where students can teach themselves or learn and discover on their own. By integrating robotics and computer programming into math instruction through Guided Math groups, Sharpe seeks to motivate students to apply mathematical concepts.
“My intention was to find out if there was something we could bring into the classroom that’s going to get the kids engaged, that’s going to be more on the level of what they want to learn,” Sharpe says.

Robots and Probots and Ozobots – Oh My
In each unit of study, Sharpe has created a variety of hands-on lessons and activities integrating specific types of small robots or robotic platforms — among them Ozobots, Probots, Spheros, and Bloxels — that allow students to apply mathematical concepts they have studied.
“I will ask students to collaborate to solve problems, articulate their solutions, and demonstrate their understanding,” Sharpe says.
For example, students can use Ozobots to demonstrate the relationships expressed by the Pythagorean Theorem; engage with ProBots to plot the answers to basic equations of lines and planes; or develop video games based on specific mathematical skills using a platform called Bloxels — all of which Sharpe says can help make math lessons “a lot more appealing to kids.”
“Success in these activities will also help students to develop a mathematical mindset in which they believe they are capable of mastering math concepts through collaboration, questioning, and problem solving,” he says. “Because the need and ability of my students vary significantly in the classroom, I have deliberately identified four robotic devices that will allow me to differentiate activities so that I can meet students where they are and allow for growth.”
Ultimately, Sharpe says he hopes “students will not only come to class excited to participate in mathematics, [but also] believe that they can succeed.”

Opening Doors
Once the new equipment was brought into classrooms, many students were eager to play and experiment with it. “It was really awesome to have various stations with all the computers going, and the kids bumping into each other,” says Sharpe.
Yet some students – and even some teachers – were anxious about the new tools.
“For something new to come in, especially for a lot of kids, change isn’t always easy,” admits Sharpe, who says he had to think through the new curriculum to figure out a more interdisciplinary approach to math instruction.
Soon enough, math seemed to become more accessible among the different students in the classroom, especially female students. Sharpe recalls one such student in eighth grade who was struggling with learning coding. Sharpe spent time with her, helping her to understand the concepts. “I was coaxing her through, saying … ‘I think you are downplaying your ability and doing something that someone told you you cannot do’,” he says.
A few weeks later, he reconnected with the student, whose attitude had completely changed. “‘This coding stuff is awesome’,” Sharpe recalls her saying. “‘You were right. I was thinking that I couldn’t do it, when actuality I really could.’”
The hands-on-experience and exposure to the various types of robots, Sharpe says, are “opening doors” for many different students.
What’s Next
Over the next year, the school will look to incorporate the robots very intentionally into the project-based learning, and to identify the data and see how the project has helped improve student learning and performance in various tests.
Sharpe says he thinks the students are “having an understanding of the application of math and knowing that if ‘I input something that I then get a result back’; I think that conceptual understanding of mathematics is huge.”
Though he has begun serving in a new role, as the district equity, restorative practices, and social-emotional learning facilitator for Middletown (Conn.) Public Schools, Sharpe will continue to champion the project.
“There are so many things changing in the math department, I feel like I’m missing so much,” he says. “I try to sneak into math classes as much as possible.”
Thanks to the generosity of Vincent and Chris Rogers, the project has the funding needed to pave a new way of thinking, Sharpe says, allowing students to “think beyond just the normal,” to think creatively, and to look at things differently.
It “really gives the kids the insight to what is possible, even if you can’t see it in front of you,” he says.
Check out more information about the Rogers Educational Innovation Fund. Applications for the 2020 Rogers Fund will open in mid-September.
From Black Armbands to Instagram: Tinker + 50

Editor’s Note: The following piece originally appeared in the National Education Policy Center’s July 2019 newsletter.
It was a chilly day in December of 1965 when 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker walked into Harding Junior High School in Des Moines, Iowa with a black armband on her sleeve.
The bands, which were also worn by Tinker’s 15-year-old brother John and other local students, were a silent protest against the Vietnam war, an effort to mourn those who had been killed in combat and to call for a Christmas truce.
One of the student protestors, Christopher Eckhardt, was threatened by members of his high school football team. But Mary Beth’s day passed largely without incident until she showed up in her afternoon math class. Her teacher, Richard Moberly, had warned the students not to wear the bands in class. He promptly sent her to the school office, where she was so intimidated that she removed the band. She was suspended anyway.
It was a moment destined to make history.
When the school board affirmed the band ban, the Tinker and Eckhardt families filed a law-suit that was eventually considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
2019 marks the 50th anniversary of that landmark case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, where Tinker and the other plaintiffs prevailed.
In the Q&A below, National Education Policy Center Fellow and University of Connecticut professor Preston Green III explains the significance of the case, tracing its implications to modern-day student speech issues (like those related to social media) that the 1965 Court could not have foreseen.
Green is the John and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. He is also a professor of educational leadership and law at the University of Connecticut. With a J.D. from Columbia University School of Law and an Ed.D. from Teacher’s College, Columbia University, Green is an expert in the legal and policy implications of educational access and school choice. Along with Joseph O. Oluwole, Green is the author of a 2015 law review article exploring students’ first amendment rights in the digital age: “Virtual Schools, Student Rights, and the First Amendment: Adjusting the Schoolhouse Gate to the 21st Century” appeared in the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology.
Q: At the time, what was the significance of the Tinker case?
A: The Tinker case marked the first time that the Supreme Court addressed whether the First Amendment applied to speech by students within public schools. The Court ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment by suspending students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In reaching this decision, the Court ruled that public schools could not censor student speech unless it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasions of the rights of others.”
“The Tinker case marked the first time that the Supreme Court addressed whether the First Amendment applied to speech by students within public schools. The Court ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment by suspending students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.”
— Professor Preston Green
Q: How have subsequent cases such as Bethel v. Fraser, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick shaped student free speech rights?
A: Although the Tinker case proclaimed that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” the Court cautioned that this right must be balanced against the legitimate interests of school officials in the safe and orderly conduct of schools. In subsequent student free speech cases, the Supreme Court has applied this balancing test to limit the free speech rights of students.
For example, in Bethel, the Court ruled that schools could discipline students for lewd and indecent speech because of their responsibility to teach students how to behave in a civil manner. In Hazelwood, the Court ruled that schools could restrict school-sponsored speech because of their legitimate interest in controlling the curriculum. Finally, in the Morse case, the Court upheld the suspension of a student for displaying a banner supporting drug use.
Q: How are student speech issues now different from the immediate post-Tinker years, and how have courts addressed cases involving students’ speech on social media or other online platforms?
A: The Supreme Court’s cases only addressed on-campus speech. These cases were completely silent on the topic of off-campus speech. This is important because a great deal of student speech occurs on the Internet. School districts have suspended students for, among other things, “liking” racist Instagram posts, for posting pictures of a school’s discolored water on Facebook and Twitter (this suspension was subsequently reversed), and an arguably lewd tweet criticizing a school district for the failure to shovel snow.
In the absence of Supreme Court guidance, federal appellate courts have developed an array of tests to analyze off-campus regulations of student speech. A recent law review article summarizes the various approaches in the following manner:
The Second, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits apply the foreseeability threshold [the ability to reasonably anticipate the possible results of an action] to the Tinker test [which balances student free speech rights with the legitimate interests of school officials in the safe and orderly conduct of schools.] The Third Circuit also applies the foreseeability threshold to Tinker, but tweaks its test to focus on the student’s intent. The Fourth Circuit applies a “sufficient nexus” threshold [i.e., an examination of the nexus between the speech and the school] to Tinker, while the Eleventh Circuit applies a “true threat” test [which aims to determine whether there is serious intent to do harm], in addition to a traditional Tinker analysis. The Ninth Circuit declines to apply any of these approaches and extends Tinker only when faced with an identifiable threat of school violence, while the Fifth Circuit’s approach is flexible to accommodate the specific facts before it.
Until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the application of the First Amendment to off-campus speech, this hodgepodge of approaches will continue.
Q: How do you think Tinker might be decided today if reconsidered by the current Supreme Court?
A: I suspect that the Roberts Court would have ruled in the same manner had it decided Tinker today. In a 5-4 decision, I could see Chief Justice Roberts siding with the liberal wing of the Court, but being very careful to note that the students’ rights had to be balanced against the concerns of school districts.
Q: Fifty years from now, what do you think student free speech rights might look like?
A: I suspect that the Supreme Court will have developed a standard to address the application of the First Amendment to online speech. I also think that the judiciary will continue to struggle to keep up with advances in technology.
The NEPC newsletter is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions.
2019’s States With the Best and Worst School Systems
WalletHub (Q&A With Richard Gonzales)
UConn’s Neag School Gets $6.9 Million Grant
The Chronicle (The Neag School was awarded $6.9M in grants from the Institute of Education Sciences for special education research)
Jacqueline Smith: State’s Head Teacher Started With 20 Inner City Kids
The Intelligencer (Neag School alumnus and incoming CT state education commissioner Miguel Cardona is profiled)
From Black Armbands to Instagram: Tinker + 50
National Education Policy Center (Preston Green responds to Q&A about the landmark free speech case)