Jack Hassard
Georgia State University
Note: This article was published in Intropectives, Volume 15, 1997, pp 16-25
Introduction
Youth exchanges foster not only warm feelings toward people of different cultures, but the emergence of deeper understandings that lead to the responsible citizen action and social responsibility. Teenagers from Dunwoody, Georgia and Moscow, Russia, who had worked together for a year in an exchange project, showed this to be the case. They summarized their year-long work with this declaration:
"We, as fighters for the environment will devote ourselves to protecting and preserving a healthy living environment. We hope to increase the world'sknowledge on circumstances that plague our planet. If we all educate, demonstrate and participate, we can make the people of the world Global Thinkers."
Citizen action and social responsibility are important outcomes of programs that place value on the application of knowledge in the service of community and people. Recently scholars such as Cross and Price (1992) have supported this view that social responsibility should be an integral aspect of school learning. This research will examine the impact of the Global Thinking Project----Georgia/Russia Youth Exchange Program on student learning with a special emphasis on aspects of social responsibility.
The Global Thinking Project: Context for the Exchange
The Global Thinking Project is a grassroots environmental education project conceived in seminar rooms and classrooms in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Atlanta. The project owes its existence to the efforts of American and Russian classroom teachers who were interested in working hand-in-hand to learn about each other, how they taught, and how to improve the quality of learning in their classrooms. Later, educators from Spain, Australia, the Czech Republic and Singpore joined and furthered the development of the project (Hassard, 1997)
The project grew out of a series of trips to the (former) Soviet Union sponsored by the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP). With no official invitation, a group of 30 educators and psychologists visited Moscow, Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), and Tbilisi (then the capitol of former Soviet Georgia) for 17 days in September 1983. Rooted in the concern for the well-being of the planet, and for improving the relationships between the people of the United States and the former Soviet Union, this delegation laid the groundwork for the AHP Soviet Exchange Program (Hassard, 1990).
From 1983 - 1989, the AHP sponsored 12 delegations to the USSR, and received nearly a half-dozen delegations of Soviet colleagues. These exchanges led to official agreements between the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Science (now the Russian Academy of Education), the AHP and Georgia State University (GSU). The agreements outlined plans for American and Russian teachers to work together over a six year period to focus on humanistic education, creative teaching methods, cooperative learning, and teacher education. Through seminars, classroom visits and demonstrations lessons, and other informal experiences, a powerful network was established.
Several international conferences were held in Atlanta, Moscow and St. Petersburg during the period of 1988 - 1990. During these conferences, American and Russian educators worked out strategies, teaching materials and a plan to help students think globally. It was agreed by these educators that the global materials would (Hassard 1997):
1. Empower students and teachers to get involved with important global problems and concerns.
2. Introduce students to collaborative methods and strategies of inquiry that can be used to solve problems locally, and provide the knowledge and technological means needed to deal with problems globally.
3. Develop computer literacy in students that will allow them to use microcomputers as a telecommunications tool to collaborate with counterparts in other nations.
Telecommunications has been an integral part of the development of the project. With the use of e-mail, we were able to create projects that were truly global in context. With the advent of the World Wide Web, and other Internet tools, we have been able to expand the nature of collaboration well beyond e-mail.
The project has from the very beginning been school based. Although I am employed by a university, my work in the GTP has been in classrooms working side-by-side with educators from several countries. The exchange of people has led to the development of a project that is rooted in human concerns. When American teachers walked into Russian classrooms to teach lessons, they realized that the GTP was about bringing people together to solve problems and learn from each other. These early teacher exchanges led to one of the most significant parts of our work, and that the creation of youth or student exchanges .
The GTP--Georgia/Russia Exchange Project
In 1995, we received the first of three grants to fund the exchange of 100 students and 30 teachers each year for three consecutive years. The goal of the GTP-Georgia/Russia Exchange was to promote communication and understanding between students in Georgia (USA) and Russia through collaborative study, discussion, and action on local environmental problems. Through collaboration at a distance using the Internet, and through face-to-face meetings, we hoped to enhance the American and Russian students' awareness of each others' needs, difficulties and points of view, and to enable them to work side-by-side in each others' communities on environmental action projects of mutual concern.
The objectives of the student exchange were:
The student exchanges have enabled us to work along side students and teachers in Georgia and Russia as they investigate and answer questions about the local environment. Students during these exchanged did not only scientific research on rivers such as the Tennessee, the Chattahoochee, the Moscow, the Neva, and Oka, but researched public policy issues and acted on them as in the case of the pollution of the Chattahoochee River as it flows through Atlanta.
Students and Schools. In all, 50 Russian and 50 American students from Georgia and a team of three teachers per school participated in a one year program marked by two, three-week exchanges during the 1996-1997 school year. We selected Georgia and Russian schools which represented a variety of geographical sites in their respective territories. The Georgia schools represented Metropolitan Atlanta (Chamblee High School, Dunwoody High School, and Salem High School in Conyers), and Rural Northwest Georgia (Chattanooga Valley Middle School, Flinstone, and Lafayette Middle School. The Russian schools represent five distinct sites including the small town of Pushchino-on Oka, the Golden Ring town of Yaroslavl, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the industrial complex in Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains. The exchange program was built on an ongoing program of collaborative environmental study, Internet activity and teacher training
The exchange had three phases of four phases of activity and they are discussed below.
Phase I. The Teacher Leadership Institute. The project began in October, 1996 with a Teacher Leadership Institute in Atlanta for U.S. and Russian teachers. The academic experience for educators focused on the content, philosophy and pedagogy of the GTP and intensive instruction on the Internet and on Web site development. Teams of Russian and American teachers also agreed on the components of their collaboration prior to the Inbound and Outbound exchanges, planned specific activities to be conducted with students during the exchange, and created the curriculum for the Global Environmental Seminar to be held at their schools as part of the exchange. Russian teachers also spent three-days in their host school meeting with school officials, parents and students in the exchange.
Phase II. Internet Activity. From October 1996 through February 1997, the ten schools in the exchange used the Internet to establish communication links among the students. To guide their work, each pair of schools developed a "mini-proposal" outlining the activities that they would work on prior to the Outbound, as well as specific environmental topics that would be investigated during the Outbound trip to Russia and the Inbound trip to Georgia. Schools began with an investigation looking into the ecology of their classrooms (How Green Is Your Classroom?) by collecting data on five different environmental components of their room. They used the Internet to send the data using Web forms we had developed, and also retrieved the other schools data from the Web. Teachers and students reported that the Internet activity was very lively with many exchanges of e-mail. A number of American and Russian students had access to the Internet from home facilitating the communication among GTP participants.
While the initial work using the Internet was underway, each American and Russian schools planned and carried out a pre-trip curriculum consisting of weekly meetings that focused on the Global Thinking Project, culture, language, ethics and travel arrangements. Many of these weekly meetings were attended not only by the students, but also with the parents. The project director met with students and parents at least once, and in some situations for two or more meetings.
Phase III: The Outbound Exchange---Americans to Russia. The Georgia students lived in Russian homes for a 21 day homestay program, and participated in local programming including visits to significant Russian cultural sites such as the Kremlin, the Hermitage, Pushkin and Pavlovsk Summer Palaces, but most importantly they participated in environmental research activities. Georgia and Russian students, with the help of their teachers worked together to monitor the atmosphere in Chelyabinsk, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yaroslavl and Pushchino-on-Oka, as well as study the health of several rivers and streams in these communities. The students from Chattanooga Valley Middle school got an experience rare for Americans, and that was to observe first-hand the Ural Mountains, near the town of Chelyabinsk.
Students used monitoring equipment provided by the Global Thinking Project, laptop computers to collect and analyze their data, and sent reports to schools in the Global Thinking Project via the Internet from Russia . Students sent e-mail reports to the GTP discussion group on the Internet, updated their web pages from Russia, and students and teachers in Puschino participated in two desktop videoconferences over the Internet using CuSeeMe software and inexpensive digital cameras. Students, using these tools, and their knowledge of environmental research, designed research projects that focused on local (Russian) environmental problems. At the end of the stay in Russia, the 100 American and Russian students and 30 teachers and administrators, and environmental scientists gathered in Moscow from March 16 - 18, 1997 for a three-day Environmental Summit to present results of their research and participate in seminars on the environment.
Phase IV. The Inbound Exchange----Russians to Georgia. The students and teachers also made plans for the Inbound (April 23 - May 14, 1997) visit of 50 Russian students and 15 teachers and administrators. While in Georgia, the Russian GTPers lived in American homes of the students and teachers that they hosted in Russia in March, participated in an academic program at each of the American schools, and experienced cultural activities in Georgia. During their stay, the Russian students joined with their American partners in a series of environmental monitoring activities at each of the five school sites, participated in an environmental seminar at each school, and participated in a public policy issue entitled "the Chattahoochee River Issue." Many of the American students knew that the Chattahoochee River was being polluted, and that the city of Atlanta was paying $20,00 per day in fines imposed by Georgia's Environmental Protection Division. Each school pair was assigned one or two research questions related to the Chattahoochee issue, and asked to prepare a report which would be given at a teleconference in ten days. Then, during a GSAMS teleconference broadcast from three sites in Georgia, the students presented their findings and recommendations, and engaged in a debate with environmental and public policy experts. During the teleconference, the teams were asked to prepare final reports which would be given at a face-to-face Environmental Summit conference to held in about a week.
The GTP--Georgia/Russia Exchange culminated at an Environmental Summit II, which was be held April 12 - 14, 1997 at the Simpsonwood Conference Center in Norcross. At the Summit, students presented the results of their Chattahoochee River issue by describing their recommendations from the point of view of either a homeowner, elected official, scientist, public policy expert, or land developer (each school pair was asked to present for one of these constituencies). American and Russian students working as partners, also presented the results of their year long work that focused on environmental and cultural learning's. The presentations took on a variety of forms: poetry, video tape, digital slide shows, singing, technical/scientific reports, and dramatic plays. Each school pair developed elaborate posters and science fair boards that included artifacts, photographs, data in the form of graphs and charts, and in one case, a digital slide show, and in an other, a video tape.
Focus of This Study
This particular study focused on the impact of the GTP youth exchange on student thinking. American and Russian students completed questionnaires at the end of Phases III (the Outbound trip to Russia) and IV (the Inbound trip to Georgia). The questionnaires included Likert type responses to a series of statements, and three sections of open-ended questions. This study will report on the analyses of the student responses to the open-ended questions. In particular we were interested in analyzing American and Russian student responses to the following:
¥ What was the main value of your experience in the exchange?
¥ What did you learn about the environment?
¥ What is a citizen scientist?
¥ How have your ideas about global thinking changed during the GTP---Exchange Project?
Method: Questionnaires and Student Work
To uncover student perceptions of their experience, we administered questionnaires at the end of the Outbound and Inbound exchanges, collected logs that students kept as a group during their exchange visit, and received written reports of the students work including their recommendations on the Chattahoochee River Issue, and environmental declarations which they wrote at the Simpsonwood Summit. The questionnaires were administered in the students' native language, and the Russian forms were translated for transcription, coding and analysis.
To analyze the student's perceptions, we transcribed each student's response to questions pertaining to the four questions listed above. Using the student's responses, we developed rubrics for each of the four areas and then used the rubrics to code the student questionnaires.
Results from an Analysis of the Student Questionnaire Responses
Although there were 50 American and 50 Russian students in the exchange, the number of questionnaires that were available for analysis are shown in Table 1. In the case of the Russians, one student was absent from the Summit in Moscow and Atlanta, and some of the American students did not attend the Atlanta summit because of school commitments.
When students were asked to rate their overall experience in the GTP--Exchange Project, the results were very positive for American and Russian students. Russian students rated the experience higher than the Americans on the Inbound as well as the Outbound, and when we combined data as shown in Table 2. Each of these differences was significant.
Although students had favorable impressions of the exchange, we were more interested in finding out what they learned by analyzing their own impressions, and thoughts. A discussion follows around the four questions that helped us uncover the value of the experience to the students, what they learned about the environment, their concept of a citizen scientist, and how their ideas changed about global thinking.
The value of their experience
The GTP---Georgia/Russia Exchange was an exchange project that focused on environmental education. Was this what students saw as the main value of their experience, or did other outcomes arise from their own reports? We developed a seven-category rubric based on student responses to the question, "What was the main value of your experience in the exchange?" The categories and the results are shown in Table 3. The rubric included categories that focused on collaboration, cultural aspects of the experience and scientific work.
When we look at the data in terms of rankings based on the analysis, we find that American students ranked crossing cultures first, followed by family, collaboration and science, while the Russian students placed collaboration and science above family (Table 4). But the significant result of our analysis is that even in a project that focused upon the theme of the environment, the concepts of crossing culture and collaboration with students from another culture were viewed as more important than the scientific work students were doing. And, interestingly enough, there was no mention of school experiences in the students open-ended responses.
Some of the student responses indicate the extent to which crossing cultures and collaboration became the main focus for their experience. One American girl stated that "I learned how to cross cultures and the Russians learned about America and Americans." Another American student said that "crossing cultural boundaries and making new friends" was the main value of his experience. And still another American student stated the importance of the experience this way:
"I was able to return the kindness and love that my Russian family had provided me, and now I could experience Sasha's emotions about American life."
Russian students appeared to be more aware of environmental differences, and commented with such statements as "I learned that the environment here is really good and the water and air are clean." Other Russian students commented that for them it was important to "experience communication with Americans and to learn their values." And a number of students mentioned that collaboration was important.
What did American and Russian students learn about the environment?
The main focus of the GTP--Exchange was environmental education. Students were involved in monitoring air and water in each country, in taking field trips to sites such as rivers, power plants, dams, and water treatment plants. The GTP curriculum is based on a constructivist paradigm of learning. That is, the intention is to provide experiences in which students make their own connections, develop their own ideas, ask their own questions----in short, construct their own knowledge about environmental issues in American and Russia. What did the students report? What was their view of environmental education as a result of their experience in the GTP exchange.
We developed a rubric consisting of six categories after reading the student responses. The categories, although not necessarily in a hierarchical list, suggest an increasing degree of involvement in students interpretation of what they learned about the environment and how to act as an environmental scientist. The list represented more of a way of thinking about the environment rather than specific facts that they learned. The results of the analysis of the student responses are shown in Table 5.
Based on the data, we rank ordered the student environmental categories (Table 6). Observation skills and comparing environments as well as making conclusions and interpreting data were characteristic of American as well as Russian thinking about the environment. American and Russian students appeared to construct a picture of how to learn about the environment by making observations and being able to describe the environment that they were studying. Although action taking was not at the top of either list, it was included in what students learned.
One Russian student commented that "we have common problems but the ecological situation in the U.S. is much better than the ecological situation in Russia." Students made assessments of and interpreted the environments that they studied perhaps reflecting the focus on monitoring, data collection and the analysis of data they collected. A student, commenting on the situation in Atlanta said "the water in Atlanta is very polluted because of problems with the sewer system."
American and Russian students were well beyond the environmental awareness stage and depicted their learning as a combination of science skills (description, observation, comparison and cause and effect), and action taking and interpretation. These concepts are important in the literature of science education, and tend to reflect educators' desires for a balance between the learning of science concepts and application of knowledge.
The Citizen scientist
We had used the term citizen scientist with the students throughout the exchange and were very interested in finding out the meaning that students attached to this concept. The term itself was derived from the philosophy of the GTP teaching materials and we hoped that the students would integrate scholarship with activism. Springer puts it this way (Springer, 1993):
Global Thinking takes direction from societal concerns rather than from the inward structure of traditional education. Global Thinking means looking at the process of schooling differently, considering what it means to be well educated in a global society. Global thinking presents man as a constructivist, a social scientist capable of using a wide range of scientific attitude skills to develop theories for inventing the future and affecting change. Applying the anticipation/participation model, global thinking facilitates interactions, connections and partnerships that allow students to experience the social nature of knowledge.
To uncover student meaning in this case, we examined their responses to an open ended question asking them "What is a citizen scientist." Four categories emerged, and they are presented along with the analysis of the students' writing (Table 7). Students defined the citizen scientist one who knows, studies, cares and acts upon the environment.
In looking at the results (Table 8), it was clear that American and Russian students valued the citizen scientist as an activist, one who "takes it upon themselves to make a difference in the environment." For students, it was important that they saw the citizen scientist in the role of activist. A Russian student said that a citizen scientist is "a person who thinks not only about his own problems but also about the world. He tries to improve the environment." Still and other Russian student said that a citizen scientist is "a person who realizes the importance of environmental problems but also tries to solve them."
American students also thought that a citizen scientist was an activist. One student said that a citizen scientist is "a human being with an average life and average responsibilities. Except, this human being is observative and aware of what effects are taking place on the world around them. They are also willing to make a difference." Students also described that the citizen scientist as a person who "combines traits of the citizen and the scientist."
It was also evident that American and Russian students felt that knowing and studying were important aspects or characteristics of the citizen scientist. It was not enough to simply act. One ought to know about the environment and know how to go about studying the environment as well. For example one Russian students said the citizen scientist "knows a lot from different sciences," and an another stated [the citizen scientist is] "is one who is educated in many sciences." And a third Russian student said, [the citizen scientist is] "one who studies any problem very carefully."
Finally, an American student said that a citizen scientist is "a person who spends his time trying to find new ways to be a citizen and protect our people and the world." The image of a citizen scientist that emerged from this research is a person who not only takes action on environmental problems, but is informed, knowledgeable, and researches issues before acting.
Did Ideas Change About Global Thinking?
One student commented about change by saying this: "I thought that environmental problems of the earth can't be solved. Now I'm glad I know that everything might be changed to the better." Optimistic yes, but reflective of what students said about how their ideas about global thinking changed.
As with the other open ended questions, we studied the students' responses, and from this data, five categories emerged. Some of the students interpreted the question as an evaluation of the GTP, and thus we created a category to code these responses. Table 9 presents the categories and the analysis of the data.
American students reported that individuals can make a difference. This was in fact the most frequently mentioned way in which their ideas about global thinking had changed. Students expressed their views in these ways:
"I've realized that even if a person doesn't go to another country to do research, they can still make a difference by simply reducing, reusing, and recycling."
"Its small scale actions that lead to large scale solutions."
"I have become more aware. When I returned from Russia I started a compost pile and began recycling more than cans and newspaper.
Although the Russian students didn't rank personal empowerment first, their ideas about global thinking did change (Table 10) . One Russian student put it this way: "The most important aim of this project was not only to help the environment, but also to show teens of both countries that they can communicate and work together in the name of a common aim." And another Russian said, "I realized that students actually can change something."
Many of the Russian students "evaluated" their experience in the GTP while answering this question. Some said, "I understood the project better during the visit," and "this project is very important for people of different nationalities." Other commented that although their ideas did not change, they felt the project was important.
The image that emerged here was that students not only learned about the environment, but that they can apply what they learned to change problems that they uncover, and that teenagers can make a difference. This sense of empowerment was quite evident, not only in the student responses to this inquiry, but in their recommendations to resolve the Chattahoochee River pollution problem, and the environmental declarations that they wrote and presented at the final summit in Atlanta.
Discussion
The GTP Georgia/Russia Exchange was a program that required students to engage in a series of environmental education activities ranging from monitoring the air and water in close proximity to their homes and schools to social action taking by making recommendations about pressing environmental concerns. Combined with the reality of a youth exchange bringing together students from American and Russia it presented an opportunity to explore the impact of these actions on student thinking.
Student perceptions of four aspects of the exchange provided insight into not only outcomes of such an experience, but an understanding of student thinking about exchanges, the environment, social action taking (citizen scientist), and global thinking. A Russian student commenting on the exchange provides an underlying premise that exchanges are holistic for the student. She put it this way:
"I think that by visiting another country we are able to realize that we are not the only people on this planet. We should be concerned with problems not just in our country, but all over the world. Unless we work together with people from all over, not all of our problems will be solved."
The GTP exchange was a youth exchange program that focused on environmental education. Students reported, however, that the opportunity to cross cultures, and collaborate with peers in another country was of more value than the scientific work that they did. However, this is not be misunderstood that environmental concerns and learning how to do something about them was not a concern. As the results showed, students valued learning how to be empowered to act on environmental issues.
Students depicted what they learned about the environment as a process. Interestingly they didn't focus on facts about one environment or another, instead they depicted what they learned in terms of several important processes of science and thinking. For example, they identified six processes that most science educators would claim as important in describing the method of science. However, the students also included action taking as an important component of the process.
The citizen scientist to American and Russian students was a person who combines the traits of a physical and a social scientist. The students viewed the citizen scientist as the activist that they identified in their discussion of what they learned about the environment. To these students, the citizen scientist is an informed, knowledgeable person who carefully studies a situation, and is willing and able to take action. Students were not talking about some generalizable concept, but were speaking about themselves. They felt strongly that they could act and take a part in making decisions about the environment, and that they could be responsible citizens themselves.
This was supported by students' contention that they can make a difference and that was the most significant way in which their ideas changed about global thinking. As one student said, "Initially I expected the GTP project to be a free trip to Russia. I came to find out that the GTP project was much more than that. It was love, energy, effort, analysis, experiments, relationships, time and much more."
Summary
The research reported in this study provides evidence that youth exchanges contribute to the development of understandings not only about another culture and the people of that culture, but a deep understanding of environmental issues and how youth can work to be involved and empowered to act on them.
The GTP currently is involved in its third student and educator exchange. One of the aspects of our research in the third year is to follow-up on the findings reported here, as well as conduct follow-up interviews with students who were involved in the exchange reported here. To what extent have their ideas changed? Not changed? Have they been involved in not only cross-cultural collaboration, but action taking on environmental issues. An American student summarized many of the students thoughts about the exchange in this way:
"I have realized I need to and have begin thinking more globally. My eyes have been opened to the world's problems, not just America's. I have learned of more and different ways I can help our planet's environment.
References
Cross, R. T., and Price, R. F. (1992). Teaching science for social responsibility. Sidney: St. Louis Press.
Dunkerly-Kolb, S. and Hassard, J. (1997). Citizen Scientists: Students Experiences in the GTP---Georgia/Russia Exchange Project. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Fall.
Hassard, J. (1990). The AHP-Soviet Exchange Project: 1983-1990 and Beyond. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), 6-51.
Hassard, J. (1997). Teaching students to think globally. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(1), 24-63.
Springer, J.L. (1993). A principal's perspective of the Global Thinking Project at Dunwoody high school: Implications for administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Table 2
Students' Rating on a scale of 1 - 5 of the Inbound and Outbound Experiences in the GTP----Exchange
Group Inbound Outbound Overall
American 4.80 4.83 4.81
Russian 4.98 4.89 4.94
Table 3
Students' Perceptions of The Main Value of Their Experience in the Exchange in Percentage
Value Areas Definition American Russian All Students
1. Collaboration Opportunity to collaborate with students in another culture 12 33 23
2. Family Experience Living in another family 19 10 14
3. Scientific Experience Working together on environmental science projects 11 23 18
4. School experiences School experiences in general 0 0 0
5. Crossing Cultures Opportunity to understand and experience another culture 78 60 69
6. Cultural Experiences Specific cultural experiences such as a museum. 0 15 5
7. Making Friends Identification of friendship 0 0 0
Table 4. Rank Ordered List Comparing American and Russian Students' Main Value in Participating in the GTP Exchange.
American Student Ranks Russian Student Ranks
Crossing Cultures (78%)
Family Experiences (18%)
Collaboration (12%)
Scientific experiences (11%) Crossing Cultures (60%)
Collaboration (23%)
Scientific experiences (23%)
Cultural experiences (15)
Family experience (10%)
Table 5
American and Russian Students' Perceptions of What They Learned About the Environment in Percentage
Learning Category Definition American Students Russian Students All Students
1. Awareness Student notes a problem without being very specific 4.4 5.1 4.7
2. Observes and Describes Student makes an observation or describes some aspect of the environment 24.4 40.8 32.9
3. Makes Comparisons Compares the environment in one place to another 24.4 15.3 19.6
4. Cause and Effect Identifies a relationship between a cause and effect 6.7 7.1 6.9
5. Taking Action Notes that action is needed or possible 5.6 12.2 9.0
6. Evaluation Student makes an assertion or draws a conclusion about the environment 32.2 16.3 23.9
Table 6. Rank Ordered List Comparing What American and Russian Students' Learned About the Environment
American Russian
Evaluation (32%)
Observation (24%)
Making comparisons (24%)
Cause/effect (6.7%)
Taking action (5.6%)
Awareness (4.4%) Observation (40%)
Evaluation (16.3%)
Making comparisons (15%)
Taking action (12.2%)
Cause/effect (7.1%)
Awareness (5.1%)
Table 7
American and Russian Students' Perceptions of a Citizen Scientist in Percentage
A Citizen Scientist is one who.... Definition American Students Russian Students All Students
1. Knows One who is interested, informed about, and aware of global thinking. 10.0 23.5 17
2. Studies One who learns about, thinks, researches, looks at, watches. 27.8 19.4 23.4
3. Cares Realizes the importance of and cares about the environment 12.2 13.3 12.7
4. Acts One who takes action or expresses the willingness to take action on the environment 38.9 29.6 34.0
5. Not Codable 11.1 14.3 12.7
Table 8: Rank Ordered List Comparing American and Russian Students' Concept of a Citizen Scientist
American Russian
Acts (38%)
Studies (27%)
Cares (12%)
Knows (10%) Acts (29%)
Knows (23%)
Studies (19%)
Cares (13%)
Table 9
American and Russian Students' Perceptions of How Their Ideas About Global Thinking Changed in Percentage
Category Definition American Students Russian Students All Students
1. Did not change No change in thinking 6.7 0 3.2
2. Did change A perfunctory statement indicating that ideas did change. 16.7 33.7 25.5
3. Evaluation A rating or evaluation of the project 8.9 23.5 16.5
4. Positive Outlook A general statement indicating that things look better, problems can be solved. 13.3 15.3 14.3
5. Personal Empowerment Student realizes that individuals can make a difference 53.3 9.2 30.3
6. Not codable 1.1 4.1 2.6
Table 10. Rank Ordered List Comparing How American and Russian Students' Concept of Global Thinking Changed
American Russian
Personal Empowerment (53%)
Did change (16%)
Positive Outlook (13%)
Evaluation (8.9%)
Not change (6.7%) Did change (33%)
Evaluation (23%)
Positive Outlook (15%)
Personal Empowerment (9%)