A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique Feature

Principle A: Need Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

A. Need: Does the program address a compelling and well-defined need?

SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description A : Statement of need is clear, compelling and supported by recent, valid and targeted data.

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Yes. To summarize: Our statement of need provides evidence of the loss and lack of STEM professionals locally and nationally. Our historically underrepresented Boston youth of color represent an untapped potential for rejuvenating the numbers and innovations in STEM fields. The pace of STEM school reform is so slow and the achievement gap has proven so stubbornly persistent that we felt it unconscionable to stand by as youth suffer in the meantime. Research shows a correlation between participation in high quality STEM outof-school-time (OST) programs and positive outcomes, including increased STEM interest and academic achievement. In Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn, we have the freedom to immediately blend cutting edge education tools & pedagogies with youth development approaches historically proven to work well in our communities. Research also shows that youth of color are already just as interested as their white peers in STEM fields but they encounter obstacles that prevent them from continuing. Developing a pipeline of peers, caring adults and neighborhood centers that can support youth from elementary school through college is a strategy that provides a web of support that can help youth overcome these obstacles. Our unique value is in our social innovation approach of creating a critical mass of young people for cultural change & building STEM education capacity in neighborhood community organizations engaging youth in computational and design thinking through emerging tools for learning technology and science, which has not historically happened multi-level role modeling and mentoring from individuals who look like our youth immersing youth in a culture of personal making that builds confidence and competence addressing fundamental engagement in both science & technology AND the social aspect of believing in ones capacity to learn and contribute toward a world that works for everyone. teenage youth teachers purposefully chosen to represent Boston: equal #s of each gender, neighborhoods, schools, ethnicity/cultural background, range of formal academic achievement but all with great intellectual potential community organization partners purposefully chosen to represent and serve children in the Boston neighborhoods most in need of education resources We have had the numbers for nine years. e.g. 2010 -2011: 35 teenage youth teachers, 95% youth of color 500+ children age 8-13, 90% youth of color 20+ community organizations in Boston neighborhoods needing educational resources 3 college mentors, former youth teachers now college Undergrads in STEM fields 40% of our youth teachers returned for 2nd, 3rd or 4th year in program

A+

A : Program makes clear

that it adds unique value in addressing the need

A : Target audiences are

well-defined and closely tied to statement of need.

A+

A : Program can
demonstrate that it is reaching the audience in greatest need of its services.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle B: Evaluation Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

B. Evaluation: Does the program use rigorous evaluation to continuously

measure and inform progress towards ambitious but measurable goals?
SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description A : Goals are ambitious but feasible and directly linked to the statement of need. A clear description is provided on how progress will be measured.

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Our program goals, as well as our work with youth, reflect a consistent philosophy of high expectations and closely address our statement of need. We have developed clear measures and methods for evaluation that include both formative and summative assessment. Formative evaluation is done largely through daily circle-up sessions with participants, periodic online progress surveys, and daily teaching reports. Summative evaluation is through a 50+ multiple choice and short answer survey that was designed in collaboration with a technology education evaluation professional. We also conduct interviews with community organization partners and do formal yearend evaluation with staff. Since numbers are very important to our critical mass for cultural change strategy, we collect numbers on participating youth and community organizations, and on contact learning hours. Our success can be demonstrated by our progress in nine years from a program with a handful of youth teachers working at a single teaching site with a dozen children, to a program that now annually works with 30-40 teenage youth teachers who engage 500+ children with STEM activities at 20+ community organizations. We also have seeded a successful Hub program in the Archdale Housing Development. From the start, our program has been designed and substantially refined through feedback from youth teachers and community partners, as well as from staff. For example, when youth told us they needed more training to be effective teachers, we added our spring Saturday learning sessions. We update and create new technology and science modules that reflect the interests of youth. Due to youth feedback, our Project Expo format has moved from formal stage presentations to a browsing booth set-up. Now, community members can visit projects at their own pace and youth have more opportunities to explain and answer questions about their projects, as well as to get more genuine feedback and observations. Our program has a unique and innovative approach and in many ways we are making the road by walking. So, much published research does not directly speak to our efforts. However we maintain ongoing conversations with MIT Media Lab researchers as well as with people whose research projects are complimentary. Mark Greenlaw of Making the Future, Dr. Chris Emdin of the Teachers College Urban Science Initiative and Dr. Anne Marie Thomas of St. Thomas University (who specializes in engineering and maker education) are a few examples. We have confidence in our approaches, so our priority has been to invest our resources and energy in youth. We have largely conducted internal evaluations. However the Massachusetts Cultural Council and the American Honda Foundation conducted third party onsite evaluations that gave us high recommendations and resulted in two-year grants from each.

A : Clear milestones with

viable timelines are presented.

A+

A : Program regularly uses

data from external or internal evaluations to identify and act on opportunities for improvement

D : Program is based on
research that does not directly apply to the programs circumstances. Program designers conduct their own evaluation in lieu of third party evaluation.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle C: Sustainability Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

C. Sustainability: Does the program promote replication and scalability?

SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating We now have a hybrid model of public/philanthropic sustainability that we want to take to the next level. We have stable public funding from the MIT School of Architecture and Planning and 4 different Boston summer jobs programs (BYF, BPIC, ABCD, MLK Summer Scholars). Year to year, we seek foundation support (from different partners) for the other costs from 4-8 other sources. The biggest sustainability challenge is in securing reliable year-round funding for several staff who have volunteered much of their time until now. Year-round staff could improve program documentation, refine and add to our STEM content, and allow for networking with other organizations doing similar work. A team of staff and community supporters has been meeting monthly to develop strategies since late last spring. All our partners, including the MIT School of Architecture and Planning, the MIT Media Lab, the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms, community organizations, and even the Museum of Science Boston, often applaud and provide ongoing crucial support for our efforts in many ways. We have found ways to make the relationships mutually beneficial. For example, the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms and the MIT Lifelong Kindergarten Group have used us as a resource for research and testing out new approaches. Though we are one of many sites, we believe we have provided MIT students and faculty practical opportunities to learn, apply their own knowledge, and gain insights into the unique knowledge, challenges and experiences of our community members and participants. The greatest demonstration of support is that each year, we get more community organizations, more youth workers, and more youth who seeking to participate and collaborate. In 2010, The City of Boston issued resolutions to formally recognize our ongoing education contributions. The MIT Center for Bits and Atoms communicates their support and recognition by having our youth present at national and international Fab Lab conferences each year. Last year, the National Science Foundation provided funding for our youth to set up a demonstration Fab Lab at the 2010 Alaska Federated Natives Convention. Our program exposes youth to STEM content through emerging 21st century ways of knowing: computational and systems/design thinking. Though these are identified as critical for the future, very rarely are they taught in schools. We not only expose youth early to STEM content, we also help youth to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively to solve problems. We also address social factors for individuals and the community that have historically made it difficult for our youth to thrive in STEM fields. If we take into account all the multiplier effects in our program design, then there is no question that the impact of the program justifies the cost. For instance, one high school youth teacher can personally impact 12-18 elementary and middle school youth. One multiplier effect in school is that our youth teachers report the surprise and new respect that their high school teachers show when they have an opportunity to say I can do that! or I know about that! We have had principals and teachers call here to visit curious about how we have been able to have such an impact on students who were stubbornly resistant to their in-school support. Also, another school multiplier effect that surprised us: each year we send youth back to school with new found respect for their teachers. Consistently, youth report, now I understand what teachers go through and how difficult their jobs are and say that, after our program they behave differently in school and ask their peers to behave differently too.

D+

D: There are plans

for securing future internal and external support after philanthropic support ends, but they are more hopeful than viable

D: People within
groups but dont always communicate that support to all members/employees. We are often one among many sites supported.

A+

A : Projected benefits
to teaching and/or learning justify the cost per participant.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

\

Principle D: Replicablity and Scalability Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

D. Replication and Scalability: Does the program promote replication and

scalability?
SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description D: A process for replicating the program is offered, but it is not yet well-documented.

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating In the first years of the program, our youth teachers produced paper Teaching Manuals that built on the best efforts of past years. However, for the past three years, youth teachers and staff have documented their efforts online using our wiki at: www.learn2teach.pbworks.com. They document projects, activity sheets used in teaching, lesson/activity teaching plans, and sample activity projects. The wiki also has embedded videos including youth-produced documentaries about the program, invention demonstrations, and activity instructions that are hard to describe in words. There are also photos and diagrams associated with the learning, building and teaching done in the program. The idea is that the wiki also serves as a resource for other folks who would like to replicate our program. However, at this point, the wiki is still somewhat ad hoc and in development. We are working with the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms to replicate our model across the International Fab Lab network. Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn has also been discussed in popular informal education enterprises such as Make Magazine and TEDKids Brussels, as well as in formal academic efforts such as MIT dissertations, academic texts, and conferences such as the ACM Embedded and Embodied Interaction conference. Formally, we have promoted local replication by initiating and seeding a Hub model that helps community organizations to gradually develop the independent capacity to offer STEM education. Our Hub in the Archdale Housing Development has been going for 3 years and their ideas have helped us innovate the core program as well. For several years, we have been in conversation with the Boston Public Schools about our model and collaborated most closely with our local McKinley Schools as they take steps to train high school youth teachers who will use our model in middle school science and technology classrooms. Securing dependable funding for one or two year-long program staff would allow us to develop a more robust approach to replication and scalability. Our community organization partners are tremendously diverse, ranging from well-staffed and equipped Boston Centers for Youth and Families with complicated programming schedules; to youth agencies, local housing developments, churches & neighborhood community centers that struggle to make ends meet and attract youth programming. We have developed flexible individualized approaches and have a great track record in adapting schedules, activities and equipment to accommodate each organizations range of needs. For instance we have traveling netbooks for those that lack dependable equipment, we install software when network administrators are scarce, we have a community technologist volunteer who helps with propping up aging equipment, we arrange field trips to our fab lab, we adapt our activities to blend with education themes, and we provide certificates of achievement for programs when requested.

D: Program provides information to other sites, but only on an ad hoc basis when requested.

A+

A : Program demonstrates that it

is adaptable to many new sites and works with local sites to adapt to local conditions

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle E: Outside Factors Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

E. Outside Factors: Have outside factors or conditions that can accelerate or

thwart the program been identified and addressed?
SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating One of the reasons we have been successful in sustaining the program over nine years is our strategy of creating a large network, blending revolving AND steady supporters/contributors. We have established dependable and supportive relationships with four city summer jobs programs and a higher education institution (MIT). Weve been successful in getting single year and multi-year foundation support along with taking advantage of city and state initiatives. The biggest challenges we face are: To sustain year-round staff with salaries who can research and incorporate new approaches to STEM content and improve program documentation, To develop long-range funding strategies that free up more staff time for programming and less for grant-writing, and To develop mutually beneficial partnerships with other local/national STEM education programs.

A+

A : Program has identified and made concrete

plans to take advantage of opportunities such as matching funds, favorable state or local policies or existing reform initiatives.

D: Program has identified potential challenges

but plans for addressing them are not yet fully developed.

We have had organizing meetings and taken preliminary but firm steps in each of these directions, but we need to more fully develop a plan to address these challenges.

A= D= U= =

Accomplished Developing Undeveloped Unique feature

Principle F: Partnerships Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

F. Partnerships: Does the program create high-impact partnerships where

beneficial?
SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating One of our greatest strengths is our partners. From the beginning we have partnered with MIT and a number of MIT Media Lab Research Groups to establish our Fab Lab, as well as to pilot and become early users of new educational technologies such as Go Go Boards, Scratch, Hyperscore, PICO crickets, and Lilypad Soft Circuits. 8 years ago, a sustainable energy intern with Americorps developed a Hydrogen Fuel Cell unit. Last year, we worked with Dr. Ann Marie Thomas at St. Thomas University to develop a way to teach basic principles of electricity and solar panels to children using her squishy circuit approach. Ed Baafi, one of our coordinators, formed a working group of experts (who have evolved into a company www.Modk.it) to produce a learning tool that addresses the engineering education needs of our youth. This year our entire youth teacher cohort participated in and made memorable contributions to the Museum of Science EurekaFest, a wind power design challenge event that draws from some of the most innovative high schools across the US and China. We also have partnered with the Efficacy Institute for several years to bring cutting edge approaches to learning proficiency to our youth through workshops. We have already successfully done this with the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms where we work to bring our model to the international Fab Lab Network. We also bring in strategic speakers like Steve Vinter, who is not only a great role model and an education advocate as an individual; his company Google promotes education volunteerism in the community. We also have been working stepwise for several years toward the goal of having an in-school application of our model in our neighborhood McKinley Schools. Developing a Hub model was a way to expand our program by expanding the capacity of our partners to offer their own STEM programming more independently. For future sustainability and increased impact, we have begun developing relationships we hope will lead into partnering projects with organizations like the Young Peoples Project (Math OST), Museum of Science Boston, Science Club for Girls, Making the Future and Sprout. The goal of developing partnerships is to extend our reach and impact.

A+

A : Recognizing that it lacks certain expertise

or competencies, the program partners with other competent organizations from the outset.

A-

A : Program identifies and partners with

organizations that have already done work that can help it reach its goals or magnify its impact.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle G: Individual Attention Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

G. Individual Attention: Does the program ensure individual attention to

diverse learners?
SelfRating

A+

Change the Equation rating description A : Program accommodates diverse learners needs through tailored instruction. Learners can learn at their own pace.

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Over time, we have developed an approach to designing good activities that accommodates each learners needs, interests and learning styles (see attached figure). All of our activities have structure, yet are open-ended enough so that the activity can go on as long as the learner has ideas. There are usually many ways to build projects, so each learner can go about building in a way and at a pace that works for them. Part of teaching preparation for activities includes what we call improvisation preparation. This means teachers are ready to teach one well-devised project path but also are prepared with 2-3 side activities/improvisations as well, in case learners run into problems or need extra challenges. For the teenage youth teachers, we use a variety of methods --- online surveys, requests for impromptu demonstrations, and circle up feedback --- to identify areas in which individuals and the group as a whole need to develop more confidence and competence. For the youth aged 8-13 who are taught by our youth teachers, we accommodate learners needs by having one youth teacher for every 3-4 learners in a session and youth teachers learn a variety of strategies to engage different kinds of learners in the same activity. All our activities are designed for personalized outcomes. We incorporate art into many activities (STEM STEAM) to help accommodate different interests and learning styles. For instance, instead of learning physical programming using only a car equipped with sensors, we also have learning through building interactive kinetic sculptures that spin, move and/or speak. Besides learning through oral coaching (front of class and one-on-one), we provide activity sheets that show the general sequence of building in pictures and words. We also accommodate those who learn best using an experiential or exploratory tinkering approach. Youth teachers design and make lesson plans for all our activities because they know best how to engage and interest youth. For example, they know how to incorporate current popular culture into the science and technology content. We have equal numbers of youth teachers who are young women and young men who are experienced in spotting any gendered needs of the boys and girls they teach. Many of the teaching technologies we use such as Scratch and Pico Crickets are specially designed to provide scaffolds for youth in learning science, technology or engineering. Our newest tool for learning physical programming, Modkit, was specially designed for youth teachers by program co-coordinator Ed Baafi. It includes built-in scaffolds so youth can begin programming on a graphical interface and observe how the graphical interface relates to actual code in a split window. As they gain skill, they can write line code directly themselves. Modkit also scaffolds the ability to build more sophisticated devices quickly to build confidence in skills and to be able to more easily build what can be imagined. The South End Technology Center @ Tent City building and computers are accessible to wheelchairs. We have participated in access evaluations and have some assistive technologies that address challenges to sight and hearing.

A+

A : Where
appropriate, technology promotes attention to individual students needs, diverse interests and different learning styles.

Principle G: Individual Attention

SelfRating

continued

A+
teens

AAge 8-13

Change the Equation rating description A : Program ensures that individual participants spend the time on task they need to accomplish their learning goals

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating As mentioned above, we use a variety of methods to gauge the confidence and competence of our youth teachers as they learn and adjust the program to accommodate their needs. We provide written tutorials and also pair less confident youth teachers with more confident ones who can both help them get skills and help them develop confidence as teachers. The South End Technology Center @ Tent City has open access hours outside of youth work hours when they can come in and practice, catch up, or do projects that interest them in order to get better. There is less time available for the 8-13 year olds due to the location, community organization staff, and schedule constraints. However, youth teachers sometimes do a variation on one activity during multiple sessions if they feel a group of children need extra help getting the ideas or if they show particular enthusiasm for an activity.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle H: Capacity Change the Equation Design Principles Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

H. Capacity: Does the program have the capacity to meet its goals?
SelfRating

A+

Change the Equation rating description A : If the organization has

been active in STEM learning in the past, it has a track record of accomplishing STEM education goals with its proposed population.

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Yes, we have accomplished getting the numbers of youth and community organizations involved, have established a pipeline from elementary school to college, have improved our model so we get better every year, and have sustained the necessary resources to support and grow the program for nine years.

A-

A : The organization clearly In other parts of this rubric, we have described how creative we have been in developing a
articulates how its staff, infrastructure, internal expertise and other resources would support the proposed project.

tremendous infrastructure and network to reach our ambitious goals continuously for nine years on a shoestring budget. One indication of how engaging and interesting our program is as a STEM community learning laboratory can be seen in the dedication and expertise of our staff. Each of them has participated as a co-coordinator of the program (we have a very flat management structure) for 8+ years: Mel King: MIT Emeritus and education innovator with over 60 years experience in every aspect of youth development from the grassroots, to the legislative, to the academic levels. Ed Baafi: B.A. Computer Science UMassBoston; current grad student at MIT Media Arts & Science in High/Low Technology Group; Ed Technology innovator and entrepreneur of Modkit; TEDKids 2011 Fellow Generation D: Digital, Democracy, DIY Amon Millner. B.S. Computer Science, MS Human Computer Interactions, GA Tech; MS & Ph. D. Media Arts & Sciences, MIT; part of MIT Scratch design team; Computing Innovation Scholar 2010-2011, Olin College Susan Klimczak. BS Electrical Eng. UMdCollegePark; M.S. Env. Ed., Lesley College; MA and Ed.D Learning & Teaching, Harvard; expertise in experiential ed, teacher ed, informal ed in community organizing Donna Parker. B.S. Therapeutic Recreation UNH, grad coursework Women in Engineering NEU; 10+ years technology education experience; 2011 Boston Tech Goes Home Community Trainer of the Year. All staff have volunteered most of their time and we are working to find a way to sustain at least two with a year-round living wage. One of the most interesting things about our program is how we work to bring STEM programming into the neighborhoods (housing developments, community centers, youth agencies) where our youth live. Our intention is that the culture of STEM becomes a normal part of the place where they live. Instead of expanding by growing our core program, we work to build independent capacity in our community organization partners. We create hubs or satellite programs, seeding equipment and training, and supporting their strategies for developing resources to sustain them. Our Archdale Housing Development Hub is in its third year & serves five of its own community organization partners. Another Hub we tried to seed was not as successful but the effort was worthwhile because we learned what it takes to run a Hub and how individualized the seeding plan for a Hub must be. We have community organizations poised to become Hubs and we are seeking funding for seeding them.

Program works to build STEM educational capacity in other organizations located in neighborhoods most in need of educational resources, where many underrepresented groups live.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle I: STEM Content Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn
Is the STEM content challenging and relevant?
How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Our content reflects our philosophy of having very high expectations for all our youth. We expose youth early to STEM content using emerging tools for learning science, technology and engineering. We engage youth in computational and systems/design thinking, emerging 21st century ways of knowing that are only rarely being either used or even taught in schools. Our activities involve youth in experimentation, design, computer programming, electronics, and algorithm-building through project-building. The STEM modules we teach to elementary, middle and high school youth include: Computer programming through making animations and games Physical programming of inventions that use sensors and actuators Alternative energy that includes introduction to electricity/power, as well as solar, windpower and hydrogen fuel cell technologies Graphic design of personalized images and objects Digital design and fabrication using our Fab Lab which is equipped with a number of computer-controlled machines that can turn an idea into a 2D or 3D reality. The learning in our program aligns most directly within the 2006 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Because our project-based learning emphasizes the relationships among science, technology and engineering, it covers learning within the Technology/Engineering Framework. Specifically our program addresses a number of the state learning standards for: Materials, Tools & Machines; Engineering Design; Communication Technologies; Manufacturing Technologies; Engineering and Power Technologies for grades 5-6, middle and high school. Although we have done the research and made the connections, we do not necessarily spend a lot of time documenting and improving our program to closely meet or follow the standards. What we are trying to do is something beyond simply aligning with what students are learning in schools; we are giving youth experiences with the latest, emerging STEM learning tools, ways of knowing, and college subject matter. Historically, opportunities for this kind of exposure have not been available socially, or through informal education, in our communities. Two examples of this are our hydrogen fuel cell technology activity and our Fab Lab. We began teaching hydrogen fuel cell technology in 2004, before it became a common media subject. So we were proud that, when the space shuttle was grounded for a faulty fuel cell, we knew that hundreds of Boston youth knew more about fuel cells than many adults, because they had built model hydrogen fuel cell cars. Our Fabrication Laboratory also was installed in 2004, one of the first outside a university. Even today, Fab Labs are often found only at universities and their use is limited to graduate students. We use education tools that developed from our relationship with the MIT Media Labs Lifelong Kindergarten Group and its director Mitch Resnick was just awarded the 2011 World Technology Award in Education. We are also doing place-based engineering in which our youth teachers design and build inventions that meet a need in their community. Our goal is to combine technologies of the earth with technologies of the heart --- believing in ones capacity to learn and contribute to making the world work for everyone. We believe it important to emphasize that an essential part of the design process is to focus on making things that contribute to us relating to each other and the planet in humane, caring and appreciative ways.

I.
SelfRating

STEM Content:

A+

Change the Equation rating description Content clearly reflects high expectations for all participants.

D: Program states that

it is aligned with standards and school activities but does not clearly demonstrate the strength of that alignment. Some required resources are not readily available for participants.

Principle I: STEM Content

SelfRating

continued

A+

Change the Equation rating description A : Program focuses on real world applications of STEM where possible

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Yes, our youth teachers engage young people in activities that focus on making things they see and use in their everyday life --- e.g. using computer programming to make animation and familiar games, using physical programming to make stoplights, reaction games, cars that react to sensors, making a model hydrogen fuel cell car etc. An example from this year: all our youth teachers learned to use the milling machine in our Fab Lab and made their own personal Fabuino, a functional arduino board. Our youth teachers design and build inventions/projects that solve practical problems they think important in their community. As they refine their designs, we think with them about how to make their inventions/projects attractive enough and cost effective enough for people to really use. The creativity of our youth teachers guarantees the application of science and technology in new and unexpected ways. For instance youth teachers combine physical programming and art by having young people build kinetic sculptures and turn a banana peel into a musical instrument and they have young people use neon-colored conductive playdoughs to build solar-powered electrical circuits that make buzzers buzz and colorful LEDs light up. Our youth teachers design and build projects that apply STEM content in creative ways. Some examples from youth teacher projects are: building an iBed with resistance sensors connected by conductive thread to an alarm that wont stop going off until you physically leave the bed for some time; making a see-saw into a cooperative game controller using infrared sensors hooked up to an online computer pong game; an hydroponic garden with fish and plants for an urban apartment; and a solar powered charger mounted behind a park bench so people can charge their handheld smartphones, ipods and game devices.

A+

Program prompts participants to apply STEM content to new or unexpected situations.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

st

Principle J: 21stCentury Skills Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

J. 21 - Century Skills: Does the program include a focus on 21st

century skills?
SelfRating

A+ teens D+ age 8-13

Change the Equation rating description A : Program explicitly demonstrates how it builds skills like critical thinking, problemsolving, creativity and teamwork. D : Program explicitly aims to promote 21st century skills but it does not clearly specify how

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating We have been explicitly thinking with 21st century skills from quite near the beginning of the program. Not only do we work with the more widespread list of 21st century skills, we also include the emerging 21st century skills of computational thinking and systems/design thinking. In Spring 2011, returning youth teachers actually went through an exercise in which they worked to transform 21st century skills into a verified resume rubric form naming specific skills that correspond to those in Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn. They actually added a few skills they thought important that were not covered easily by the conventional 21st century skill set. We are thinking of using a verified resume with future youth teacher cohorts. A verified resume is tool used to teach and document 21st century skills and behaviors that employers and colleges have identified as valuable. The verified resume can create a certification of youths progress that can be used to help them obtain jobs or apply for college. Since all learning and teaching activities for youth teachers are personalized and project-based, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, as well as creativity are fundamental. They learn the engineering design process and all teaching is inquiry-based. Youth teacher work in teams to design and build their projects, as well as when they teach elementary and middle school youth in community organizations. Workshops and circle up feedback sessions are specifically address groupwork practices and obstacles. Youth teachers are asked to reflect on their group process during the final evaluation survey at the end of the program. However, though the elementary and middle school youth sometimes work in pairs on activities, their learning about teamwork is largely opportunistic and limited largely to watching youth teachers model team-teaching. This is what drives our program. We started Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn with the observation that our youth love to use and value high technology devices (smart phones, ipods, game devices, wii, etc). We believe they can go beyond being consumers and become the inventors and innovators of the future. We do this explicitly by: exposing all youth to emerging technologies having all youth learn via constructionism how to design and build personalized projects in 2 hour learning sessions having youth teachers work in teams, spending 3-6 weeks to design and build an invention that solves a community issue that is important to them and demonstrating and sharing their inventions to the community at our Project Expo, with an aim toward inspiring others to imagine and build

A+

A : Program prompts
participants to be innovative and create new ideas or products

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle K: Inspiration Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

K. Inspiration: Does the program inspire interest and engagement in STEM?

SelfRating

A+

Change the Equation rating description A : Program clearly demonstrates how it creates excitement and dispels negative misconceptions about STEM

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn creates excitement through: Youth-designed activities that incorporate high level concepts as well as practical skills and knowledge while taking advantage of the expertise that youth have about what will work with other youth Holding learning sessions for youth teachers at the MIT Media Lab where they are exposed to the latest world class techno-creativity Having youth teachers brainstorm strategies for getting elementary and middle school youth into STEM & incorporating these strategies into their teaching Having youth teachers meet with scientists who have interesting careers in technology, engineering and science; e.g. last year we met with Steve Vinter from Google Participating in Museum of Science EurekaFest windpower design challenge with youth from across country & world Holding a Project Expo each year for the community where youth teachers get to show off their accomplishments and see how impressed and interested people are in their work. An important obstacle for our youth is that there are few STEM professionals in their communities who look like them and speak their language. This means there are few role models and mentors who can nurture an interest in STEM. The lack of caring adult role models/mentors can send out a message for youth that STEM is not a career for them. And then there is the reality that peer influence is equally if not more powerful. Many of our youth are immersed in negative peer cultures where academic success is not considered to be cool. But we believe there is a way to harness the positive aspects of peer influence to engage youth in emerging technology and science by: Having enthusiastic youth teachers as role models who look like them (in terms of culture, ethnicity, gender) and speak their languages teaching exciting emerging technology and science activities to our elementary and middle school youth Having diverse returning youth teachers serve as role models and mentors for new youth teachers Having former youth teachers who are now college undergraduates serve as mentors for youth teachers to answer questions and dispel myths about studying STEM disciplines in college and to help youth figure out strategies for getting around obstacles. Our approach encourages youth to personalize their learning activities and projects to make them relevant and connected to their own interests and experiences. A few examples of this: Two Cambodian American youth created a model robotic minesweeper because of their experiences of landmines in Cambodia; a group of young women who live with their grandparents created an automatic pill dispenser with an alarm triggered by missed pills; a group of young black men who were concerned about experiences with police brutality fabricated educational t-shirts with LED lights and a website highlighting rights & concerns; a young Somalian Muslim woman personalized her press-fit catapult fabrication design as a mosque that sends out Koran passages from a scroll flipper.

A+

A : Program clearly
shows how it connects STEM to participants own interests and experiences

Principle K: Inspiration
SelfRating

continued

A- / D+
teens

U
Age 8-13

Change the Equation rating description A : Program demonstrates how it creates excitement about career opportunities that require STEM background D : Program occasionally connects STEM content to realworld careers, but those connections are not always clear or consistent U: Program makes few or no connections between STEM content and careers that use STEM knowledge

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating For youth teachers, our approach is not always as clear or consistent as we would like to be, but every year: We hold weekly spring learning sessions for our new youth teachers at the MIT Media Lab so that youth can see MIT as a place where they belong and can get exposed to the world class labs and ideas at the MIT Media Lab We have occasional STEM professional visitors who give talks and do Q & A with the youth teachers; i.e. last year Steve Vinter from Google and our youth teachers spent a couple of hours learning about each others work We show occasional videos of scientists and inventors who are doing cool things in our circle-ups We have college mentors studying STEM fields who do a lot of informal talking with our youth teachers about their own STEM career aspirations

However, we do have evidence that what we are doing is working. According to our 2011 Final Evaluation Survey for youth teachers, after the Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn Program: 88% were more interested in a career in science and technology 82% were more interested in how science and technology relate to their future career 82% now definitely want to pursue a career in science and technology 56% are more interested in a career that involves teaching

For our elementary and middle school youth, we do not currently have a plan for connecting our STEM content with careers that use STEM knowledge. Some of this goes on in the activities, but it is an area that we need to think more about.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle L: Inquiry and Hands-On Learning Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

L. Inquiry and Hands-On Learning: Is inquiry or hands-on learning

encouraged?
SelfRating

Change the Equation rating description

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Inquiry is the fundamental approach we take in teaching and learning activities. We do this through staff role modeling and in our how to teach training. Not only do our youth teachers engage in inquiry during their projectbuilding, they also use multimedia and web tools to record their design and building process on our wiki at www.learn2teach.pbworks.com. They also communicate their inquiry process of design and building to the community through posters and demonstrations at our annual Project Expo. The elementary and middle school youth taught by our youth teachers are only engaged in 1 hour lessons and have considerably less opportunity to engage in inquiry than their youth teachers. While all our youth teachers use inquiry-based teaching, the range of their capacities to effectively do this varies with their experience as teachers. So inquiry-based teaching is a skill we want to strengthen even further for our youth teachers. This year we are planning to develop an activity for the Museum of Science and then do a workshop on inquiry-based teaching with their education staff who specialize in inquiry-based learning. Erasing the lines between educators and participants is one of the main aims of our program. We want all our participants and staff to be both learners and teachers. We ask two questions at the end of every learning session of elementary through high school youth: what did you learn? & what can you teach someone else? Staff develop their own projects and passions that they pilot with youth, as well as share with youth, often asking for assistance from youth and inviting collaboration.

A+ teens A- age 8-13

A : Program promotes inquiry by

encouraging participants to pose relevant questions, seek possible explanations, test those explanations and draw conclusions

A+ all

A : Program creates an environment

where educators and participants work together as active learners.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle M: Underrepresented Groups Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

M. Underrepresented Groups: Does the program address the needs of

underrepresented groups?
SelfRating

A+

Change the Equation rating description A : Program explicitly addresses needs of groups that are underrepresented in STEM fields, such as females and people of color

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating We have written elsewhere about how our model was designed with a blend of pedagogies and youth development approaches that explicitly address the needs of our youth of color. We expose our youth to science, engineering and technology at an early age, because historically this has not happened. We blend STEM content with technologies of the heart tailored to what we believe youth need to thrive academically; we offer opportunities to develop a belief in their own capacity for learning, to see day-to-day failures and obstacles as opportunities, and to make meaningful contributions to community with their STEM skills. This is important because our youth are up against underperforming schools, peer cultures that dont reward academic success and a constant barrage of negative media. Our recruitment is based on a word of mouth strategy as described below to attract youth who do not respond to posters and emails. To address the needs of young women, we purposefully work to have a woman of color as one of our co-coordinator staff. Several years ago, we reviewed our teaching/learning activities to offer options that might appeal equally to both girls and boys -for instance, we added kinetic sculptures, along with car-based physical programming activities. To address the needs of our community, we locate housing developments, community centers, youth agencies and churches located in the Boston neighborhoods most in need of education resources. Each year we set a goal of making significant efforts to include either a neighborhood (recently Mattapan, Fields Corner and South Boston) or students from a specific cultural background underrepresented in our program (recently Vietnamese, White working class, Cape Verdean). One indication of our success is that increasing numbers of our youth teachers are seeking to return for 2nd, 3rd and 4th years with the program, as well as returning from their undergraduate studies as college mentors. Last year all our college mentors were returning youth teachers and we reached what we consider to be the maximum and ideal number of returning youth teachers (40% of the 2011 cohort were returning youth teachers, 60% of cohort were new youth teachers) Reaching underrepresented groups and having an active practice of inclusion in general is our passion. We have a citywide vision: for the last nine years, youth teachers have been purposefully recruited to represent Bostons neighborhoods, schools, ethnic groups and academic achievement levels. We also recruit and reach youth with diverse levels of academic success. We believe that it would be very easy, yet undesirable, to select youth strictly on formal educational merit. We specifically target the inclusion of youth who may be underachievers in a formal education environment, but who show evidence of extraordinary intellectual potential. Many of these youth will not necessarily read or respond to literature about our program. So, we employ a word of mouth strategy in which a network of over 250 youth workers all over the city who are willing to talk to one or two youth they feel would benefit from or would benefit the program. These youth workers personally hand youth an application, often helping them fill out and deliver the application, as well as helping them to get to the interview.

A+

A : Program will be able

to demonstrate that it will successfully reach underrepresented groups through targeted recruitment efforts

Principle M: Underrepresented Groups

SelfRating

continued

Change the Equation rating description

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Over our nine years we estimate that 46% of our teenage youth teachers have been young women and 54% have been young men. Over 90% of our youth teachers and participants have been youth of color. Over the years, we estimate that our youth teachers have been 60% Black, 28% Latino, 14% Asian, 5% White and 5% Other. Among them, our youth teachers report speaking 8-12 different languages. Last year, 33% reported that they spoke a language other than English and 25% reported speaking a language other than English most of the time at home. We believe it is key to have staff and college mentors who look like and speak the languages of the underrepresented groups that they serve. Too often what our youth know culturally is not validated in school or in the curriculum. We believe that for youth to retain new information, they have to have a bridge from their culture. Someone who looks like them or speaks their language can build a bridge from what they know to science, technology and engineering knowledge.

Program staff serve as role models who look like the underrepresented groups that they serve.

A = Accomplished D = Developing U = Undeveloped = Unique feature

Principle N: Staff and Volunteer Capacity Change the Equation Design Principles Rubric Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn

N. Staff and Volunteer Capacity: Does the program ensure the

capacity of program staff or volunteers to promote STEM learning?
SelfRating

A+

Change the Equation rating description A : Staff or volunteers know STEM subject matter and have a command of project-based learning

How Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn meets this rating Our staff and volunteers are not only passionate about tinkering and building with science, technology, engineering and math; they are also passionate about creating a learning space where all are included and all can imagine, design and build. Several of our longtime staff have actually designed and built emerging computational thinking/learning tools that support our youth (SCRATCH and Modkit). Among the five coordinators of our core program and hub we have 3 with computer science and engineering degrees that range from undergraduate to doctorate level. We also have three with education degrees that range from undergraduate to doctorate level. One of our coordinators has over 15 years experience teaching in experiential community-based learning communities. Daily feedback from our community organization partners recorded on teaching reports describes our youth as professional, energetic, well-prepared, and great teachers. In terms of STEM knowledge, they also consistently say that our youth teachers grasp of the material is impressive and that they really know what they are doing. In terms of their education skills, supervisors say our youth teachers have good exercises and good facilitation, were active and social throughout[and] knew what they needed to delegate, present and inform, have such a positive impact and make it easy [for childrent] to understand. They say the children are always so excited, and have fun and learn something. There is a goal and big idea for each session that youth teachers ask about at a circle up at the end of each session; supervisors report that most of the time, children got the goal and big idea and were able to recap the day. Because our program was conceived as a merging of community organizing and education, our network of relationships is strong, including: a recruitment network of over 250 youth workers 25+ community organization partners a network of 5 summer jobs programs that sponsor youth teachers support from MIT School of Architecture & groups at the MIT Media Lab a generative and collaborative relationship with our Hub partner at the Archdale Housing Development Most of the staff are highly active learners who are enthusiastic about their fields and about keeping up with new information and best practices. Informally, we share what we have learned with each other. For new coordinators, we do professional development through individualized mentoring and apprenticeship. Since our model is so layered and complex, it often takes a full apprenticeship year to train new staff; our goal to maintain several full year staff is very important because that will allow us to retain new coordinators from year to year.

A+

A : Staff and volunteers know

how to build strong relationships with educators, community members and program participants they work with

A : Where necessary, program

provides effective professional development on subject matter, project-based teaching and/or skills in building strong relationships