Innovate to Mitigate: Science Learning in an Open-Innovation Challenge for High School Students

Abstract

em>In this exploratory study, we report results from hosting two rounds of an open innovation competition challenging young people age 13-18 to develop a method for carbon mitigation. In both challenges, teams worked within the classroom and extensively on their own time out-of-school. The challenges were structured to engage participants to work collaboratively and independently in an open-ended, goal-oriented way, yet constrained their work by the parameters of the challenge, and supported it by a suite of tools, and resources. Evidence of learning science concepts and practices, student persistence, and the enthusiasm of participants, teachers and coaches, convince us that the Challenge structure and format is highly worthy of further development and investigation. Our findings indicate that Challenges such as this have the potential to enlarge the “ecosystem” of learning environments in the formal education system.</em

Full text

Sustainability in Environment
ISSN 2470-637X (Print) ISSN 2470-6388 (Online)
Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se
389
Innovate to Mitigate: Science Learning in an Open-Innovation
Challenge for High School Students
Gillian Puttick1* Brian Drayton1 & Abe Drayton1
1 TERC, Cambridge MA, USA
* Gillian Puttick, E-mail: gilly_puttick@terc.edu
Received: November 10, 2017 Accepted: November 26, 2017 Online Published: November 29, 2017
doi:10.22158/se.v2n4p389 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/se.v2n4p389
Abstract
In this exploratory study, we report results from hosting two rounds of an open innovation competition
challenging young people age 13-18 to develop a method for carbon mitigation. In both challenges,
teams worked within the classroom and extensively on their own time out-of-school. The challenges
were structured to engage participants to work collaboratively and independently in an open-ended,
goal-oriented way, yet constrained their work by the parameters of the challenge, and supported it by a
suite of tools, and resources. Evidence of learning science concepts and practices, student persistence,
and the enthusiasm of participants, teachers and coaches, convince us that the Challenge structure and
format is highly worthy of further development and investigation. Our findings indicate that Challenges
such as this have the potential to enlarge the “ecosystem” of learning environments in the formal
education system.
Keywords
carbon mitigation, problem-based learning, high school, open innovation, science competition
1. Introduction
The “ecosystem” of formal STEM education has always included activities such as science
competitions, science fairs, and field trips. The special purpose of these is to provide students with
opportunities to experience and practice science as it is practiced and experienced in the real world.
Crowdsourced open innovation challenges are promising candidates to add to the science education
ecosystem because they provide students with opportunities to participate in an exciting problem space,
to engage in a social structure that allows engagement with peers and with scientists about real science
(Snow & Dibner, 2016), and to take agency for their own learning. In the Innovate to Mitigate
competition, we proposed to turn educational efforts from educating about the environmental
challenges associated with climate change to mitigating them. The project designed and hosted two
rounds of a competition for young people age 13-18 to develop a method for mitigating global climate

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
390
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
change.
As a problem-solving environment, Innovate to Mitigate was structured to engage a broad diversity of
participants collaboratively and independently to work in an open-ended, goal-oriented way in teams,
yet constrained their work by the parameters of the challenge, and supported it by a suite of tools, and
resources. The online cross-platform competition was designed to fully integrate social media to build a
youth-led learning community around mitigation.
The goal of our research was to test the following conjecture: A crowdsourced open innovation
challenge will successfully attract teens and engage them in sustained scientific inquiry. Preliminary
evidence from an analysis of learning on an individual team in the first round of this competition
suggests that the four students in the team acquired considerable knowledge about research methods,
and science content, and acquired skill with science practices (Drayton & Puttick, 2017). In this study,
we present the results of a mixed-methods analysis of how and to what extent this transformative
learning environment engaged young people in STEM learning, motivated and sustained participation,
and supported levels of innovation and creativity.
1.1 Theoretical Framework
To our knowledge, the Innovate to Mitigate competition differs from other climate-related competitions
(e.g., the Trust for Sustainable Living, Connect 4 Climate) in important respects. It drew on
crowdsourcing in the competition community to elicit the best thinking of participant teams, used
social media to support student participation, and involved deep engagement with science and
technology. The design of the project was informed by theory in three areas: the nature of the “greatest
challenge of our time”—climate change—as a compelling societal problem that youth care about, the
demonstrated ability of crowd-sourcing to generate innovative solutions to problems, and the
importance of social media in connecting youth today.
1.1.1 Compelling Problem as Content Area
Complex systems, climate, and climate change constitute key components of the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), and calls from scientists to address education and action
in this arena are more urgent than ever (e.g., Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 2010; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014). Moreover, there is a
closing window of opportunity to keep CO2 emissions low enough to limit average global temperatures
to a 2°C rise (National Research Council, 2010). Young people are eager to address the threat from
climate change. Sustain US (sustainus.org), for example, coordinates the activities of over 100 youth
organizations across the US to address climate change. Innovative ways to educate the next generation
can build on this eagerness.
Several researchers believe that environmental problems are particularly suited to crowdsourcing (King
& Lakhani, 2013; Brabham, 2008). As an example, these authors cite the success of competitions such
as the “Ecoimagination Challenge” hosted by General Electric. Focusing educational efforts on
mitigating the impacts of climate change will allow participants to take an active role in addressing the

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
391
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
largest collective action problem society currently faces (Broadbent, 2011). As a result, they will gain
agency, not denial or despair (American Psychology Association, 2009). Moreover, mitigation is a high
priority on the research agendas of many entities, for example, the National Academy of Engineering,
which lists the development of carbon-sequestration methods as a Grand Challenge for Engineering.
Enormous advances in research and development in green technologies towards a carbon-neutral world
are being made (e.g., McGrail et al., 2016; Gunaratna, Ebert, & Akhurst, 2016). These initiatives are
intrinsically engaging because they involve real science to address a real-world problem. In fact, such
competitions have been encouraged by the America Competes Reauthorization Act (2010), given their
potential to solve tough problems and spur innovation, and some make a compelling argument for the
need for prizes to spur innovation (Frey, 2012). Finally, there is plenty of room in this area for valuable
contributions from engaged non-professionals, both in the area of innovative design, and in the area of
social design for behavior change. Even those who claim to be concerned about climate change poorly
understand it, and show little willingness to take action (Leiserowitz & Smith 2010). Furthermore,
people’s opinions can be easily changed by, for example, changes in economic security (Kahn &
Kotchen, 2010). Warning or teaching about it has not overcome what Rowson (2013) called “collective
action problems that appear to be beyond our existing ability to resolve” (p. 4).
1.1.2 Crowdsourcing/Open Innovation
Crowdsourcing is prominent in industry, science and business (Whelan et al., 2014; Howe, 2008;
Surowieki, 2005), where it provides innovative solutions for challenges. Teams often share their work
even when in competition for a prize, citing the intellectual satisfaction of discussing cutting-edge
scientific ideas (Howe, 2008). Taken together, open innovation and crowdsourcing infuse divergent
ideas into problem solving. Most striking, solutions are often achieved by unlikely-seeming
problem-solvers who bring wide diversity in terms of disciplinary background and/or knowledge, skill
or training level, or educational experience (InnoCentive, 2011; Howe, 2008; Surowieki, 2004), and
those who participate in online forums more generally (Gee, 2000). In fact, diversity influences
crowdsourcing generativity (Howe, 2008); the more diverse the solvers, the more likely an innovative
solution is to emerge (Lakhani et al., 2007). A desire to acquire new skills and to learn (Lakhani et al.,
2007), and a passion for problem solving and exploration in open source production (Raymond, 2003;
Himanen, 2001) characterizes solvers.
We hypothesize that the “previously unexploited collective intelligence” (Bull et al., 2008) of young
people will be engaged, since many features of real world crowdsourcing competitions align with
features of existing learning environments known to be effective and engaging. These include:
engagement with a real world problem (Falk et al., 2010), involvement in an engineering design
process that makes authentic practices accessible to learners (Edelson & Reiser, 2006), learning in
depth (Roth & Lee, 2003), opportunities to communicate science findings (Passmore & Stewart, 2002),
opportunity for sustained engagement (Scardamalia, 2003; Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2009) and
engagement in problem-/project-based learning (Ravitz, 2009; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Edelson, & Reiser,

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
392
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
2006; Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011; Strobel & von Barneveld, 2009).
In particular, the emphasis on production of knowledge and of a designed product is crucial since it
requires all participants to be “producers”, which in turn leads to higher-order thinking skills (Gee,
2011). In addition, working in a free-choice collaboration allows learners to shed the constraints of an
(institution-imposed) school identity (Gee, 2000, 2005), which frees them to engage, learn, and
participate as scientists would. Henry Jenkins, a key theorist about participatory culture, points out that
interaction within a “knowledge community” builds critical social skills and cultural competencies for
youth, e.g., collective intelligence (the ability to pool knowledge with others toward a common goal),
judgment (the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources), and negotiation (the ability
to “travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping
and following alternative norms”) (Jenkins, 2009, p. 106). A competition that offers a rich real-world
challenge and that can accommodate divergent thinkers—a key feature of crowdsourcing (King &
Lakhani, 2013)—can offer participants a new, potentially transformative learning environment in a
technology-rich learner-centered context (Luckin, 2010).
1.1.3 Using Social Media
Since the majority of youth now engage in regular active creation of online content (Lenhart & Madden,
2005), daily use of the internet (Lenhart et al., 2010), and social media (Lenhart, 2015), we expect them
to feel comfortable working in a hybrid face-to-face and online community.
Social media can be seen to embody a social constructivist view of knowledge as decentralized,
accessible, and co-constructed by and among a broad base of users (Greenhow et al., 2009).
Seventy-five percent of teens age 12-17 own cell phones, and the average teen sends 1,500 texts a
month. Online social networking benefits youth by providing and exchanging information and
feedback, help from peers with school-related tasks, reinforcement of identity, and forming connections
within and across geographic boundaries (Greenhow & Burton, 2011). Findings reveal that online
social networking can include issue-oriented, argumentative writing (Beach & Candace-Stevens, 2011),
or online chats in lieu of book reports (Hughes, 2016). Furthermore, teamwork facilitated by social
media has also increasingly been deployed successfully by practicing scientists (Henry, 2016).
In addition, college-age and graduate students have used multimedia projects and social media as the
basis for collaborating with others, discussing science with a wider community, and explaining
scientific concepts to peers and family. For example, graduate student participants in the NSF IGERT
video competitions (igert2013.videohall.com) expressed pride in their accomplishments, increased their
self-identity with regard to science, and increased their sense of belonging to the wider scientific
community (Stroud & Falk, 2015).
In this paper, we describe a mixed methods research study of a competition that engaged youth in two
rounds of a challenge to mitigate climate change. We report outcomes related to three overarching
research questions: (1) What was the nature of the Challenge experience? (2) What did students learn?
and (3) To what extent did the competition support student innovation?

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
393
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
2.1.1 Round 1 Participants
Eleven teams signed up for the Challenge, but five teams dropped out within 2-3 weeks of the start of the
competition period. They citing reasons such as conflicting schedules, engagement in afterschool sports
or other activities, and completing college applications. Five teams ultimately submitted final projects to
the video forum (http://www.innovatepilot.videohall.com). One team was at an American school abroad,
one was a parochial school team, one a private school team, and two were at public schools. Nine girls
and 7 boys participated; 11 students (68%) were white. Five of the 16 students were at the middle school
level, while the remainder were high school students.
2.1.2 Round 2 Participants
We received 104 abstracts in the qualifying round. Fifty-four of the entries qualified for the final round,
and a total of 23 individuals or teams, totaling 74 participants in all, submitted a video and paper
(archived at innovate2015.videohall.com). All but one of the participants heard about the competition
through their teacher, and all of the teams conducted their work under the coaching of their science
teacher. The majority of participants reported attending U.S. schools, while 2 teams attended
International schools, whose students noted their home states in the U.S. Median age reported was 16,
and the range was 13 years (2 students)—18 years (2 students). Median grade level reported was 10th
grade and the range was 7th grade (1 student)—12th grade (3 students). Twenty participants were female,
and 29 were male; two students chose not to share this information. Participants self-identified as Asian
American (30 students), or White (15), while other ethnic groups were underrepresented with respect to
their prevalence in the population as a whole (African American=1, Hispanic=4, other=2, not
reporting=4). We do not have data on population demographics of the school districts in which the
teams were situated.
2.2 The Challenge Design
The Challenges incorporated many of the essential features of crowdsourcing:
 A widely broadcast invitation to participate (Howe, 2008);
 A rich real-world challenge that could accommodate divergent thinking (King & Lakhani, 2013);
 A combination of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (He et al., 2014; Brabham, 2008; NRC, 2007);
 A subsidy for the investment cost of participation to optimize the number of contributors—a
materials stipend for participants in the first challenge (King & Lakhani, 2013).
Features of both rounds included:
i) A first call to enter the Challenge publicized widely through postings on Facebook, as well as emails,
which included a problem statement about mitigation, and an invitation to solve the problem.
ii) Teams could access the project website, which featured breaking stories about inspiring research
projects that are currently producing potential mitigation solutions—from news outlets, links to
Youtube videos, and reports in popular science blogs—to inspire creativity and seed ideas. Also

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
394
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
available were a brief introduction to the science of climate change, and mitigation and adaptation.
iii) Prospective teams of participants submitted an abstract outlining their mitigation idea.
iv) Teams brainstormed and developed the solution they had outlined in their abstract over a period of
several weeks. They were helped by a local coach with execution, problem-solving, and logistical
challenges, and the science/engineering content if they had the necessary expertise.
v) Teams submitted their projects to the online video forum, using the TERC Videohall (Note 1)
developed by another team of researchers at TERC. During this forum, each was judged by a panel of
four scientists. Teams were encouraged to respond to questions from the judges. Submissions were
open for a public comment period.
vi) Prizes were awarded for innovation, best video, best poster or paper presentation, and most engaged
participant in community comment. In addition, a community choice award was made for the
submission that received the most likes in the video forum.
2.2.1 Round 1: September 1 2014-February 29 2015
In addition to the features just described, this round included:
i) A graduate student mentor, recruited by the project, for each team. Mentors received an orientation via
webinar, about the project, the competition and website functions, and mentoring tips on features to look
for in student work, how to stay in contact, and how to ask productive questions.
ii) The website featured a password-protected “team space” for each team where they could post
progress reports, store resources, and discuss their work.
iii) Submitted abstracts were open for a short period for public comment and questioning.
2.2.2 Round 2: January 22-May 15 2015
In the second round, we issued a wide call for proposals via an email to a list of over 75 names,
generated from a wide range of teacher, environmental education, and informal education organizations,
and our own network of educators. It included a link to the Inspirations page on the project website,
which led to research and development information about current innovations in mitigation. A url for
entering the competition was also provided, as well as information about the structure and requirements
of the competition. These included the submission of an abstract that briefly described the proposed
innovation and a statement about why submitters considered it to be innovative. We also included a
media toolkit for dissemination in recipient’s own social media venues.
Abstract submissions in this qualifying round were open for crowdsource-like public comment for a
period of three days, after which a panel of three project scientists reviewed the abstracts, using a rubric
that evaluated innovativeness, feasibility, and potential for impact. Since we also wanted the review to
be educative, two project staff gave written feedback. Qualifying participants were notified that they
had proceeded to the final round.
For the final round, the qualifiers were invited to make a two-minute video pitch for how and why their
approach would work, and to predict the possible mitigation impact that their idea would have if it were
implemented. They were also required to write a 1200-word essay that justified the argument for their

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
395
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
idea with additional rationale and evidence. A rubric was provided that detailed how the panel of judges
would evaluate final submissions.
For the duration of this round, in contrast to the previous one, we adopted a hands-off approach to
project work. As a result, periodic emails about impending deadlines were the only regular and direct
communication we had with teams. In addition, the project tweeted regularly about the competition,
and updated posts on the competition’s Facebook page.
The video forum ran over the course of a week, during which the submissions were open for comment
in a public discussion forum. At the same time, in a judging forum, participants were provided with the
opportunity to respond to queries about their submissions from the panel of judges. We recruited
science graduate students as judges for the final round by emailing 75 winners in previous
Interdisciplinary Graduate Education and Research Traineeship video competitions (e.g.,
http://igert2013.videohall.com/), twelve of whom responded. Advisors and project staff completed the
judging team of 16 so that each submission was judged by 4 judges. The submissions were also eligible
for a community choice award, and a “best critic” award for the person who posed the most meaningful
queries and comments to their peers in the discussion forum. After the event, the site was placed in
archive mode and the content and discussion remains available.
2.3 Research Questions
We used mixed methods research to address the following overarching questions and sub-questions:
1) What was the nature of the Challenge experience?
- What are the reasons that the Challenge attracts teens to enter?
- To what extent does the Challenge engage students in sustained scientific inquiry and persistence
in completing the Challenge?
- To what extent was crowdsourcing a factor that influenced the thinking of teams?
- What are students’ perceptions of the virtual poster hall experience?
2) What did students learn?
- What does an analysis of student artifacts (video and paper) reveal about student learning?
- What are students’ perceptions of their science learning, and of the nature of science?
3) To what extent did the competition support student innovation?
- To what extent did judges rate projects as innovative?
- What were student perceptions of their own level of innovation and creativity?
2.4 Data Sources
Data presented from Round 1 are participant self-report from a student survey. Data presented for
Round 2 are participant self-report from a pre/post survey; abstracts, videos and papers submitted to the
videohall; the judges’ ratings of participants’ submissions; and a semi-purposive interview of the
teacher whose students comprised the largest proportion of participants. Questions were intended to
learn about the context in which the teacher had invited her students to enter, what her perceptions of
their experience had been, and what amount of class and out-of-school time they spent on the project.

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
396
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
2.4.1 Student Post-Survey
Because of the open nature of the Challenge competition, and the resulting need for participants to
remain anonymous, they participated voluntarily in the survey. The survey drew on a range of established
tools developed for other research projects. We selected items related to student motivation (e.g., “I have
always been a motivated learner in science”), persistence (e.g., “I usually finish tasks even if they are
difficult”) and self-concept towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) (e.g., “I think
of myself as capable in science”). Items for student motivation came from the Science Motivation
Questionnaire (Glynn & Koballa, 2006), persistence from Student Persistence in Engineering survey, and
self-concept towards STEM from College Biology Self-Efficacy Instrument (Baldwin, Ebert-May, &
Burns, 1999). Nature of science items were drawn from Views of Nature of Science (Khishfe &
Abd-El-Khalick, 2002).
2.4.2 Artifact Review
Competition submissions were coded using a rubric created by the project to gather data related to our
conjectures about student learning of science practices, and level of creativity and innovation, as
follows:
Science practices: Codes related to the presence of a clear problem statement, a theoretical framework,
a model underpinning the mitigation strategy, prediction about impact, development and testing of a
prototype solution, and appropriate citation of literature.
Innovation: The extent to which the mitigation strategy proposed built on others’ prior work, and the
degree to which it was innovative (that is, was it a new entirely inventive idea that broke rules and
conventions, a new development of an existing idea that used common materials and/or ideas in new
ways, or not innovative).
2.4.3 Judge’s Rubric
Judges were asked to rate the overall quality of the science evident in each submission; the potential of
the idea for future development as a feasible mitigation effort; the level of innovation of the submission,
the extent to which the team broke rules and conventions or used common materials and/or ideas in
new ways; the quality of the paper and video presentations; and, the quality of student responses to
judge’s queries in the discussion forum in the video hall (Table 1).
Table 1. The Judging Rubric
Category Rubric
Overall quality of the
submission
• Defines a specific plan/idea and includes a prediction or claim
about its mitigation impact on climate
• Provides evidence (science citation, empirical evidence) to back
up the plan/idea
• Is scientifically accurate

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
397
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
• Addresses the feasibility of the plan/idea (e.g., taking account of
possible challenges, limitations, barriers related to social technological,
or scientific factors)
Innovation
• Is entirely inventive
• Breaks rules and conventions OR uses common materials and/or
ideas in new ways (e.g., develop a small-scale, more efficient method to
sequester carbon)
Paper presentation • Presents argument clearly, concisely, and logically; line of
reasoning is sound and easy to follow
Video presentation • Creativity in use of video (e.g., interest level or sense of surprise
is high for viewer, uses effective images or metaphors), production
value is high
• Uses video effectively to convey important and innovative
content
Replies to judge’s queries • Responses are appropriate, clear, and relevant
2.4.4 Judge’s Survey
Judges completed a survey after the competition to give their overall impressions of the level of
innovation they encountered in the group of projects they rated. Questions addressed the extent to
which students’ ideas were innovative; the extent to which presentations were creative; whether any
projects, ideas or teams sparked their interest, and why; and, overall the extent to which they think
projects might have potential for future development.
2.5 Data Analysis
Fifty-four participants completed the survey; we discarded data for three students because they either
did not complete Likert-scale items, or entered meaningless answers for open-ended questions, or both.
We analyzed data from both rounds qualitatively and quantitatively, and triangulated the data if possible.
Quantitative data gathered from online Surveys and Google Analytics were analyzed with Excel. Since
we deconstructed previously validated instruments to create measures for surveys appropriate to our
project, we needed to determine validity. Face validity of instruments was determined through careful
expert review by our advisors. We created and used a directed coding scheme for open-ended response
items in the survey related to our research questions, and for student submissions, based on pre-defined
codes for level of innovation and creativity. All project submissions, and participant responses were
coded by two researchers, reaching 85% inter-rater reliability. Where disagreements occurred, coders
discussed the differences and established an agreed coding.

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
398
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
3. Result
3.1 What Was the Challenge Experience
The results reported here relate to student motivation to enter the competition, the extent to which it
sustained their participation, the nature of their experience in the video poster hall, and the use of social
media.
3.1.1 Entering the Competition
In Round 1, students were not asked this question. Students entering Round 2 were asked on a
beginning survey to check as many reasons as applied for what motivated them to enter the competition.
For the majority, the opportunity to feel like they were doing something about mitigation, or that they
cared deeply about the topic, were among the primary reasons stated (Table 2). Just over half of the
students (28 of 54) reported that they entered as a class, and were required to enter the competition by
their teacher. Almost half said that they found the prize money motivating. In response to a final
question on the survey, “Anything else you’d like us to know about you?” one participant wrote, “My
friends and I love your process as it gives students a great opportunity to think and collaborate like in the
real world while the cash incentive motivates those who only want money”.
Table 2. Reasons That Motivated Entry in the Competition
Mitigating
Climate
Change
Care about
the Topic
Peer
Recognition
Prize money Required
by a
Teacher
Part of a
Course
Extra
Credit
17 19 10 24 28 12 1
Students were also asked to what extent addressing climate change had been something they had
thought about before entering the competition. Three quarters of the participants reported that they had
thought about it “a lot” or “somewhat” (Figure 1), the remainder responded “just a little” or “not at all”.
Figure 1. The Extent to Which Students Had Thought about Addressing Climate Change Prior to
the Competition

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
399
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
To ascertain whether students’ “environmental identities” were a factor that motivated entry, we asked a
series of proxy questions that might indicate prior interest in environmental issues, such as whether
they had studied environmental science at school, and what was their experience in environmental
activities, and their relationship to nature. Just over half of the students (28) agreed with the statement,
“I would describe myself as someone who loves nature”. Likewise, just over half (29) had done an
environmental science course prior to the competition. Students were asked about their participation in
environmental activities at home, at school, and in the community. Recycling was the most common
activity (at home=49 students; at school=46 students). A small number of students appear to have
stronger environmental identities as evidenced by their membership in environmental clubs (9 students),
or having started a school (7 students) or communitywide (5 students) environmental effort. Twenty
reported that they were at schools that were identified as “green” or that supported green efforts.
3.1.2 Sustaining Scientific Inquiry
Teams that completed the challenge in Round 1 took six months overall to develop and test their
prototype idea and submit a final product. However, in Round 2, the overall time spent on the project
was three months from abstract submission at the beginning, to final project submission. We will return
to this point in the discussion.
Given that all of the teams that entered the competition were school-based, we wondered when they
would complete the majority of the work on their project. In response to the prompt, “I/we completed
most of our work…”, the greatest number of students (19 students) reported working only outside of
school hours, either after school (10 students) or afterschool and on weekends (9 students) (Figure 2).
The remaining students worked some combination of school and out-of-school hours.
Figure 2. Times When Students Reported Working on Their Project (n=37)
Pam Matthew, a teacher whom we were able to interview in Round 2, wrote in an email:
Initially, I thought that my students didn’t have time to compete and do all that we wanted them to […]

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
400
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
I really have to praise my students for all the work they did on this project, the majority of which was
outside of class. They’d discuss each other’s entries in the hall, including those from other schools, and
really learned a lot about environmental issues. I am really hopeful that you plan to continue with the
competition this year.
What helped to sustain student participation and persistence? The challenging nature of the competition,
its direct connection to an important phenomenon, and the invitation to be creative and innovative,
were clearly appealing to students. When asked to check all items that applied to complete the
statement, “I loved that the competition was…” over three quarters of the Round 2 students checked
“involved creative thinking”, over two thirds that the “solution could include anything”, and just under
two thirds that it involved problem-solving and allowed them to explore big ideas. Finally, two fifths
also loved that the competition was challenging (Table 3).
Table 3. Features of the Competition That Students Liked About the Experience (n=51)
I loved that the competition n
Involved creative thinking 42
Solution could include anything 37
Involved problem solving 35
Allowed me to explore big ideas 34
Was challenging 22
As a body, the Round 2 students were overwhelmingly self-motivated, thought of themselves as
capable in science, and found science highly engaging, as indicated by their ratings of statements
regarding these constructs (Table 4). This was a contradiction of one of our conjectures going into the
project. We conjectured that a science competition such as this would allow students who were not
considered successful in science by conventional means, or who were not motivated by classroom
science, to find a “niche” in which to excel.
Table 4. Number of Students Who Rated Their Agreement with Statements about Motivation on a
Scale of 1 (Very True) to 5 (False)
Statement Very
true
Somewhat
true
Neutral Mostly
false
False
I think of myself as capable in science 32 11 6 0 2
I am self-motivated and usually finish tasks
even if they are difficult
35 9 5 0 2
I have always been a motivated learner in
science
34 9 6 1 1

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
401
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
Science is boring 0 0 1 10 40
In response to a final question on the survey, “Anything else you’d like us to know about you?” one
participant wrote, “I had a really fun time working on this project and as long as a great and wonderful
idea is picked I don’t care what the outcome will look like. Thank you for giving me this opportunity
because I think it has helped me understand the importance of finding a clean renewable source of energy
in greater depth. So once again thank you!”. Another wrote, “Science was not much [sic] strong suit, but
I was really excited about this project. I would love to continue to formulate this idea after the
competition”. A similar sentiment was expressed by 50% of the students who rated the following
statement, “I will continue to pursue ideas about what we addressed in our project in the future” as
“very true” (13 students) or “somewhat true” (14 students).
3.1.3 Participation in the Virtual Poster Hall
Round 2 students were asked to rate their experience participating in the video hall. When asked how
the online presentation compared with face-to-face poster sessions they have participated in
previously—as in a science fair, for example, just under one-third (17 students) rated the experience
better than face-to-face sessions they had participated in. Interestingly, a similar percentage thought that
the experience was the same as a face-to-face poster session (18 students). Over a fifth (12 students)
rated it a worse experience; we did not ask for students to explain their ratings, so we do not know the
reason for this rating. Approximately four-fifths of the students responded “somewhat” or “very much”
to a statement about learning how to make an effective video, and how to communicate their research
(Table 5).
Table 5. Student Agreement with Statements about Learning Scientific Presentation Skills
Statement Not at all Somewhat Very much No response
I learned more about how to make an effective video 11 18 20 1
I learned more about how to communicate research 6 26 19 1
In response to a final question on the survey, “Anything else you’d like us to know about you?” one
participant wrote, “The online presentation was very helpful, especially for students with anxiety
because there is no pressure to be perfect and meet face-to-face with strangers”.
Each presentation received queries from four judges, and presenters replied to these queries. This
sparked informed scientific dialogue, which was made public after the competition ended. In total,
there were 195 judge’s queries and student replies. The judges’ ratings of the quality of student
responses to their queries was included in the overall judging score. Students responding to the
question, “How valuable were the judge’s queries?” stated that the queries were “somewhat” (20) or
“very” (30) valuable (4 students did not respond).

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
402
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
In addition, a general discussion area invited comments from colleagues and visitors to the site. There
were 433 posts in the general discussion area. Many of these posts were content rich and originated
from other teams in the competition, for example asking substantive questions about the submission.
Others were more social, for example, expressing congratulations for fine work, or best wishes for a
future in science. The majority of students also felt that the general discussion in the public forum in
the video hall was “somewhat” (38) or “very” (8) valuable, while 5 students did not think it valuable.
Queries and responses from the discussion and judge’s forums are presented in greater detail in the
student learning section below.
3.1.4 Use of Social Media
As has been found for other competitions or showcases staged at videohall.com (Falk et al., 2012), the
competition provided a valuable opportunity for students to share their submissions with members of
the public. The Video hall supports social media use in connection with competitions, providing links
to Facebook and Twitter, as well as a unique URL for each video. Over a third of the teams (37%)
reported sharing with family, and with friends (43%), while just over a fifth shared with their teacher
(22%) (Figure 3). This enabled students to bridge their nascent scientific identity to their personal
identity and social network, an increasingly important aspect of authentic science practices (Eagleman,
2013), and an important way to share science with the public (Tachibana & Zelinski, 2014).
Self-report data can be triangulated with data from website analytics. During the phases of the
competition prior to the Video hall event, only a small minority of students visited the project’s
Facebook page or followed the project’s Twitter feed (16% and 9% respectively). However, during the
event (June 08-15, 2015), analytics showed an overall total of 443 shares and 397 likes on Facebook,
and 67 shares using Twitter. The discrepancy between Facebook and Twitter use is not surprising, given
that teens are on Facebook much more regularly, and use Instagram or Snapchat instead of Twitter (Pew,
2015).
Figure 3. Number of Students Who Shared Their Video
Also during the poster hall, a total of 433 public discussion posts were made, and 1,898 “Public
Choice” votes were cast. The four videos with the most discussion activity received 65, 44, 19, and 19

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
403
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
comments and/or questions in the public discussion forum, while the remaining submissions had
between one and ten public comments. In the private judging forum, there were 195 judges’ queries and
presenter’s replies. In both the private and public forums, participants engaged in rich scientific
discussions with judges and with members of the public. These data are presented below, under student
learning.
3.2 What Students Learned
In this section, we discuss findings from Round 2 on student learning from their projects. Results
presented here focus on science content, science practices, and the nature of science, drawn from two
data sources: student self-report on the survey, and coding and analysis of student submissions.
Over half of the final projects submitted (13 of 23) focused on some aspect of alternative energy
generation. Five of these described some method for capturing kinetic energy, two deployed a system
for artificial photosynthesis, five focused on photovoltaics, and two captured and converted thermal
energy. Five projects described ways to farm sustainably through local production of food in cities,
three explored ways to sequester carbon through tree planting or the use of algae, two described
innovations that improved efficiency (of lithium batteries, PDA chargers), and one focused on a
regulatory mechanism for supporting the use of hybrid vehicles. It was notable that 30% (7 projects)
were interdisciplinary. For example, one project focused on the chemistry involved in carbon
sequestration methods, and considered the economic aspects of these methods, another integrated
battery technology and microbiology, and yet another integrated agriculture, economics and social
dynamics.
3.2.1 Science Learning
An overwhelming majority of students reported that they understood a moderate amount or a lot about
climate change and about the specific area of their project when asked to rate their learning at the end
of the competition (Table 6).
Table 6. Self-Report of Levels of Understanding about Climate Change and about Project Area
Question Very little Some Moderate amount A lot
How much do you understand about climate change now? 0 4 25 22
How much do you understand about your project area now? 0 5 19 27
In a retrospective open response item about what they had learned (At the beginning of the project I
knew…, Now I know…), the specificity of student responses varied. Less than a fifth (8 of 43 students)
made vague statements that they knew a little about a topic at the beginning (e.g., “not much about
climate change”), and more at the end of their project (e.g., “more about climate change”).
Approximately a quarter (10 students) reported with a little more specificity, e.g., “that solar energy
existed” at the beginning, and “the different methods and problems [for] solar energy producers in the

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
404
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
modern world” at the end. However, half the participants provided very specific information about how
the project experience had enhanced their knowledge about climate change, mitigation or both (Table
7). The three examples shown are a representative sample, selected to show qualitative differences in
student perception of what they had learned.
Table 7. Sample of Student Responses to a Retrospective Survey Item on Learning
Example At the beginning of the project I knew… Now, as a result of the project, I know…
1 …not too much about solar cells and
energy consumption
…more about different types of solar cells,
calculating energy saved by solar cells, and
the amounts of energy wasted in the house
2 …some general problems our world is
facing and the basics of photosynthesis that
occurs in plants
…how artificial leaves are crafted and
mimic photosynthesis, and how they can be
used to mitigate CO2 emissions
3 …little about the specifics of
piezoelectricity and its potential, but a
decent amount on the possibilities for
climate change solutions
…the function of subways and how they
can be used to produce renewable energy,
and the significant potential for this kind of
opportunity
Two students wrote about the personal impact of the learning they had done (“Now I know about the
greenhouse gas effect from different sources and am excited to continue searching for and creating
solutions”, “Now I know the basics and I can hold a conversation about them with others”). Or about
the urgency of climate change (e.g., “Now I know that if we don’t act soon we’ll be under water by
2050”). Ten students did not complete this item.
Participant responses in the video hall discussion forums provide a more in-depth snapshot of student
learning, that we can use to triangulate with the self-report results. Overall, students displayed a depth
of knowledge across a wide range of domains, and individual participants across different topics within
a domain. The first example is from the “Cogediv” team, a group of three 10th graders that was awarded
first place by the judges. This team had described an innovation in which artificial leaves are mounted
in arrays of various sizes. The leaves consist of catalysts and fuel cells embedded in a resin. The
catalysts replicate photosynthesis, and the fuel cells immediately convert the glucose generated into
electrical energy. Small installations can provide energy at the family level, while large ones could power
factories. The cost of manufacturing these leaves could be offset by the fuel cell electricity production
[…] they can be arranged into overlaid structures that enable maximum gas capture. The following
excerpt shows an exchange between one of the judges, and a team member:
Nathan T (judge): I really liked your idea, creating artificial systems that can photosynthesize without
the trace minerals that actual plants require, a very smart idea. If the glucose produced is used to

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
405
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
generate electricity what are the breakdown products of the glucose? Presumably the carbon
sequestered in the glucose is not released as CO2 but remains sequestered in some other format?
Denali G (Cogediv team): […] One way would be to extract the gluconolactone which […] is an FDA
compound, which has many purposes. In fact, it is used for acne-creams and as a sequestrant, acidifier,
or a curing, pickling, or leavening agent. This compound can also be hydrolyzed into glutonic acid.
Another way to solve the issue would be to transport the resulting carbon to a local underground
sequestration zones with high pressure for long term storage. The EPA estimates 1,800 to 20,000 billion
metric tons of CO2 can be stored underground in the United States. However, this methodology poses
some engineering concerns which would need to be addressed. More research would need to be
conducted to remedy the issue of actually transporting the gas.
In this exchange, we see Denali’s deep understanding not only of the chemistry involved in her
proposed mitigation strategy, but also of having done additional research required to demonstrate its
feasibility, i.e., citing the EPA statistics, while acknowledging the frontier engineering concerns that
currently obstruct underground sequestration.
In another example, the Photoelectrics team designed transparent solar cells as smartphone covers to
continually charge the phone during use, thus obviating the need for a plug-in charger. One of the
judges raised a concern about the efficiency of the solar cell indoors:
Nick R (a judge): Nice use of an emerging new technology. How efficient do you think these would be
outdoors vs. indoors, since we tend to use our phones in both cases, but the light exposure can be quite
different?
Hana Y: […] Some sources of indoor lighting, particularly halogen lamps incandescent lamps, can emit
a varied amount of ultraviolet energy providing some charge to the device. In fact, 70% of energy emitted
by incandescent lamps consist of infrared energy. Common fluorescent lamps used today can still
transfer ultraviolet energy with variable strengths depending on the proximity to the lamp. While the
charge provided indoors will not be nearly as powerful as direct sunlight, some electric charge can be
generated from indoor lamps and light leaking in through windows.
In this response, we see Hana’s additional information that Hana and her team had gathered to
considered the feasibility of their solution, but not included as part of their submission.
3.2.2 Science Practices: Communicating Results
Students were asked, “To what extent do you think you constructed an evidence-based explanation to
support your innovation idea?” On a scale of 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“fully and completely”), almost
three-quarters of the students (74%) rated their arguments as 4 (24 students) or 5 (16 students), showing
that they thought their argument was scientifically sound. Seven rated their explanation at 3, and one at
2, indicating that they were feeling equivocal about the quality of their explanation.
Qualitative analysis of the submissions confirmed these data, revealing that all of the teams made clear
problem statements about the mitigation strategy, and the overwhelming majority (91%) provided a
coherent supporting argument backed up with evidence. Team KR, for example, proposed the

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
406
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
construction of “solar trees” that mounted streamers containing sodium bicarbonate to capture CO2, and
branches covered with photovoltaic paint to capture solar energy. They describe the problem that this
design addresses:
While renewable energy is beneficial to the environment, it comes with its own problems. It needs large
tracts of land to generate significant power, and these areas can be long distances from the facilities
that would use the energy. Storing this energy for long periods of time can be hazardous, while
transporting it long distances can be expensive and cause more pollution in the form of carbon dioxide.
This is where solar trees come in.
They addressed several considerations to support their proposed design, and create a coherent argument
that supports their design. For example, they describe the costs and benefits in terms of carbon
sequestration rates, maintenance costs, and aesthetics, as well as providing data on proposed efficiency,
and estimates for daily capture of CO2.
Almost half of the teams explained the mitigation strategy using both qualitative and quantitative data,
while 25% used only qualitative data and 25% provided only quantitative data. Not surprisingly, given
the structure of the challenge in contrast to the design of the first round, only three teams developed
and tested a prototype of their chosen mitigation strategy. Interestingly, these submissions all came
from younger students.
When asked to explain their rating for the degree to which their argument was evidence-based, several
students gave specific and detailed responses. The following two statements are typical of this group,
“A lot of our project was based on evidence found based on extensive research. We included large
amounts of data based on the prior findings of the artificial leaf and solar panels”, “We did a good job
using realistic numbers. However, some of the numbers were less reliable as they were averages”, and
“We used published statistics to create plausible values for our innovation’s impact”. Another identifiable
group of respondents acknowledged that, although they cited data to back up their proposed innovation,
they did not gather the data themselves, but used data from the literature, for example, “We have good
evidence to support our idea, however we did not gather the evidence ourselves, [a] scientist at MIT
gathered it through experimentation”. One team demonstrated media literacy, recognizing that data from
the internet may not always be trusted, “All experiments can always be proven more thoroughly, but I can
name a few flaws in ours. Our car emission estimate came from an average car... maybe a Honda Accord.
But the thing is we didn’t test it ourselves. My group and I got it from the internet which may not have
been reliable”.
Another group stated that their case was evidence-based because they had spent a lot of time working on
it, “My group spent countless hours researching the mechanisms in our project. We spent many evenings
working out calculations in our project and deciding on how to maximize efficiency”.
Thirty five percent of the teams provided a prediction of the impact of their chosen strategy clearly. The
Subway Solutions team prediction is representative of this group. They proposed the installation of
piezoelectric energy generators in subways to harness the kinetic energy from passing trains. While this

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
407
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
has been experimentally tested, the team proposed adding pressure-plate flywheel generators, resulting
in higher energy conversion. Citing data from research on piezoelectric systems under roadways, they
translate this to their proposed system and predict 25-35% more efficiency:
Trials run with a piezoelectric system laid under one kilometer of a single-lane highway yielded nearly
200KWh or 720MJ. Assuming that this experiment was a best-case scenario and that a consistent
amount of pressure was applied throughout the length of highway tested, the maximum weight of the
cars on the highway is approximately 347,753 kg. Further calculations show that a similar mechanism
implemented in a subway system would produce 222KWh (799.2 MJ), an 11% increase on the data
provided. This is a significantly greater amount of energy production based on just one aspect of our
method. Taking into account the increased pressure in the subway system, as well as the increase in the
uniformity of the subway system, our entire method could be anywhere from 25-35% more efficient.
With regard to reading the scientific literature, an essential scientific practice for this competition,
almost three-quarters of students (39 students) thought that they had become “more proficient,” while
eight students reported that they were proficient (“Yes, but still found it difficult”).
As already mentioned above, student-student discussion in the video hall forum revealed student
engagement in scientific give-and-take characteristic of professional scientific meetings. For example,
a solo 11th grader, Callie W, proposed a vertical farm in a multi-level high-rise building, that included
passive heating/cooling systems, as well as renewable energy (e.g., biomass, geo-thermal and solar).
Housing livestock and hydroponic growing systems, the farm would house humans in the top floors.
The following exchange between another participant and Callie also reveals a depth of knowledge and
skill in debating the relative merits of a project design with regard to mitigation:
Mat M (participant, PHSgreenbeans team): Controlling the climate indoors will use a lot of energy,
which could counteract the benefits of such an idea. How can you modify your idea to accommodate this
fact? Also, what is the cost of building and maintaining such a building? The energy generated from the
solar panels will not generate enough for the building to be self-sustaining.
Callie W: Indoor climates do use higher energy but by use of the 5 different renewables plus the 6 other
energies/reclaims the farm will produce more energy than it uses and use fewer resources to produce
more food. This is explained in my paper above. Solar energy will only account for 20% of the energy
load. other renewables already included in the design are; Wind, Biomass, Thermal, Waste and methane
gas. All of these form the design and construction of this farm. The cost estimate for this project would be
around 1 billion US dollars to construct each farm. However, compared to its size and production this
works out at about the same cost per square meter as a normal commercial farm. However, the vertical
farm would require a tenth of the space and a fifth of the energy consumption of a normal commercial
farm.
In this exchange, we see Mat M raising a valid concern regarding the feasibility of Callie’s mitigation
idea; if maintaining passive systems and using renewable energy were counteracted by the quantity of
energy needed, how could the solution be justified. This question provoked a thoughtful response in

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
408
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
which Callie attempts to counter the critique with an argument she had already used, but also comes up
with additional counterfactuals to buttress her original claims.
3.2.3 Nature of Science
In response to the statement, “I understand more about the nature of science as a result of doing this
project”, well over half of the students (59%) rated the statement “true” or “somewhat true”. Nine
students were neutral about the statement, and about 25% rated the statement “somewhat false” or
“false”.
In addition to this question, we asked students a retrospective question about how they thought that
science advanced. Student responses fell into three main categories (Table 8). The first reflected
expanded and possibly more nuanced views on the nature of science. For example, students recognized
the importance of careful processes, the need for taking time and making effort, and for trial and error
“as well as” innovation. They also identified the need for particular dispositions as part of the nature of
science, for example, naming “creativity” “curiosity” “hard work” and “perseverance”. The second
category consisted of responses that could be said reflect an expanded view of who does science, and
possibly shifts in personal identity with regard to science. For example, students included “people like
you and me” and “newcomers” or “anybody” with new and good ideas. The smallest category included
a view of science as problem-driven. In this view, science advances as a result of applying research to
address a problem. Three students did not respond, and five provided the same vague answer (e.g.,
“hard work” “experiments”) to both questions.
Table 8. Sample of Student Responses to a Retrospective Survey Item on How Science Advances
Category At the beginning of the project I thought
that science advanced by…
Now, as a result of the project, I think that
science advances by…
1. Focus on
the nature of
science
(n=28)
…random guesses and lucky results …careful and deliberate processes
…observing something, forming an idea
about how it worked, and testing the idea
…observing something, forming an idea
about how it worked, and testing the idea,
and allowing other scientists to test it
…innovation …trial and error as well as innovation
…new discoveries made by people using
evidence shown from their
experiments/trials
…still new discoveries, but it can also be
new ideas. People have plenty of ideas
that could help advance science, but it just
takes time and effort
2. Identity of
who does
science is
expanded
…people with a lot of degrees from
University
…newcomers who have fresh ideas
…mostly professional scientists ...society and new ideas brought to the
table

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
409
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
(n=10) …a few people who are very
knowledgeable in their field
…by expert scientists but also anybody
else with a good idea
…scientists who are paid to work and
have no other motivation
…anyone such as you or me who has an
idea they think is worth sharing and that
might make a difference
3. Problem-
driven view
of science
(n=6)
…how much content we know …how we use the content we know to
change the world
…innovation and perseverance driven by
curiosity
…innovation and perseverance driven by
curiosity and the need for a solution
...finding out new information about life
and our world
…coming up with new ways to save our
planet
We also asked students to rate the statement, “Science is useful for understanding everyday problems”.
Every student but one agreed that the statement was true or mostly true.
Finally, we asked students to check items that applied from a provided list of general skills, all relevant
to the practice of science or to knowledge about mitigating climate change, that they thought they had
learned because of participating in the competition (Figure 4). Interestingly, to “think outside the box”
was the most frequent response (66%), followed by “collaboration” (59%), and being able to “build on
previous knowledge” (57%). Just under a half of students (46%) checked that they had learned that
there were “no easy solutions” to the challenge of climate change. Two other attributes important to a
student’s capacity to do science, the ability to “organize time” (44%) and the attribute of
“perseverance” (31%) were not rated quite as highly (44% and 31% respectively).
Figure 4. Student Selection of Statements about General Skills Learned

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
410
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
3.3 Innovation
3.3.1 Judge’s Ratings
Innovation was defined by the project as:
• Is entirely inventive;
• Breaks rules and conventions OR uses common materials and/or ideas in new ways (e.g., develop
a small-scale, more efficient method to sequester carbon) (see Table 1).
This rubric was used by judges in both rounds of the competition. In Round One, all 4 judges reviewed
all 5 projects, while in Round Two, groups of 4 judges reviewed groups of 5-6 projects.
Round 1. All five projects submitted in the first round of the competition were deemed innovative by
the judges. Two projects focused on carbon sequestration—one by generating biochar and the other by
implementing “green roofs” on large vehicles such as buses. Two projects focused on different aspects
of algal growth—one explored the impact of light type and level on algal growth to optimize biofuel
generation while the other explored a miniature method for iron fertilization of the ocean to boost algal
sequestration of carbon. The fifth project designed and tested systems to generate renewable energy
using crank generators.
Round 2. Just over half of the 23 projects (15 projects) focused on some aspect of alternative energy
generation or improving energy efficiency. Six of these described a method for capturing kinetic energy,
one deployed a system for artificial photosynthesis, six focused on photovoltaics, and three captured
and converted thermal energy. Five projects described ways to farm sustainably through local
production of food in cities, nine explored ways to sequester carbon through tree planting, artificial
photosynthesis, and the use of algae. Two described innovations that improved efficiency (of lithium
batteries, PDA chargers), and one focused on a regulatory mechanism for supporting the use of hybrid
vehicles.
The twelve judges were asked on a 1-3 scale, 1 (“not at all”), 2 (“somewhat”) or 3 (“very much”), their
rating of the following two questions: “To what extent do you think the submissions you judged were
inventive or innovative?” and “To what extent do you think the submissions you judged have potential
for future development?” The judges rated the overall level of innovation in the group they judged as 2
(6 responses) or 3 (6 responses), indicating that they thought the group was somewhat or very
innovative. An overwhelming majority of the twelve judges rated the potential of the group of projects
for future development as 2 (6 responses) or 3 (5 responses), indicating that they thought the group had
somewhat or very much potential to be developed in the future. In addition, judges were asked to
explain their rating. One of the judges singled out the “Decentralized Servers” project, and wrote:
The distributed servers idea hit closest to the mark for me. Coming from a work environment that uses a
lot of energy on computation, I could easily see an idea like this being implemented (though perhaps not
in residential regions).
Judges were also asked the question: “To what extent did you think the submissions broke rules and
conventions, or used common materials and/or ideas in new ways?” Five judges thought that projects

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
411
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
did both, while seven thought that they had used common materials/ideas in new ways. In explaining
their rating for the group they had judged, judges singled out specific examples of using common
materials or ideas in new ways.
One of the judges singled out the “Subway Solutions” and the “Photo Electrics” projects in explaining
their rating, writing:
The subway piezoelectric project did a very good job at using two problems, lack of steady pressure
and high power use in urban areas, to create a solution. I was intrigued by their idea and would be
excited to see it in action in a big city.
The solar smartphone screen project did a very good job of integrating a power use problem into current
technology. If they were able to implement this, it would circumvent people forgetting to use an external
solar charger. Depending on power useage, I could see this technology, in conjunction with more efficient
batteries, potentially removing the need to charge smartphones.
Overall, the power of the competition as a learning environment was amply demonstrated by the caliber
of the projects the students produced, the depth of learning their posters, videos and discussion responses
revealed, and the students’ own ratings of the competition experience. Furthermore, the potential for this
type of competition to generate fresh and innovative ideas for carbon mitigation was made evident by the
judges’ ratings and comments. The judging was rigorous, since twelve of the 16 judges were science
graduate students, and four of the judges were project staff, all of whom hold advanced science degrees.
Nevertheless, all were highly impressed at the caliber of projects submitted by the student teams.
3.3.2 Project Ratings
While the judge’s rating was based on their overall impression of the group of projects they judged, we
also coded the level of innovation of each individual project using the same rubric. We found that projects
were somewhat less innovative when rated individually (Table 9). It is possible that the favorable
impression that two or three projects in a group colored the overall impression of the group in the minds
of judges.
Table 9. Level of Innovation in Student Submissions
New idea New development
of an existing idea
Not
innovative
4% 43% 52%
4. Discussion
Many features of real world crowdsourcing competitions align with features of classroom learning
environments known to be effective and engaging. For example, many researchers have established that
involvement in an engineering design process makes authentic practices accessible to learners (Edelson
& Reiser, 2006; Boss et al., 2011). Likewise, opportunities for sustained engagement with a

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
412
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
phenomenon result in deep learning (Scardamalia, 2003; Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2009).
Problem-based learning provides such opportunities (Ravitz, 2009; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Edelson, &
Reiser, 2006; Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011; Drake & Long, 2009). Opportunities to reason about and
communicate scientific explanations findings has been found to support deeper understanding of
complex phenomena (e.g., Passmore & Stewart, 2002; McNeill & Krajcik, 2012). All these features are
characteristic of mature scientific practice, and, indeed, science competitions have become popular
arenas for engaging students in authentic science.
Such features all contributed to the power of this learning environment, as our findings show. The
competition attracted and motivated teens to enter, and resulted in sustained engagement in deep science
learning. Taken together, our results show that teams crossed disciplinary boundaries as they chose
concepts from chemistry, engineering, mathematics or biology to address the mitigation challenge. Free
choice of the specific STEM content they addressed included a wide diversity of topics ranging from
biomimicry for artificial photosynthesis, to decarbonization of fossil fuels, to social media campaigns
for reducing energy use, or improving transportation efficiency.
In addition to deepening their science learning, almost two thirds of the participants reported that they
had learned more about the nature of science. In addition, they reported learning about many of the other
dispositions that are necessary for success in science, for example, thinking outside the box,
collaboration, and building on previous knowledge. In addition, teams engaged in science practices
such as modeling, experimentation, error-analysis, representation and communication. In the design of
the competition, we appropriated features of crowdsourcing that matched these features of effective
learning environments.
Addressing the compelling societal problem of climate change was a powerful motivator for many
students, while others cited the opportunity for sustained engagement and collaboration as a feature of
the competition that they liked. The challenging nature of the competition charge, the invitation to be
creative and innovative, and the open-ended requirements for acceptable solutions, were clearly
appealing to students. Although these data resulted from a survey item that included a leading question,
“I loved that the competition was…” the data appear to have been borne out by the judges’ assessments
of student projects, and through triangulation with other survey items.
Our design included a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, recommended by many as
essential features of successful competitions (He et al., 2014; Brabham, 2008; NRC, 2007). Frey (2012),
in discussing a history of prize incentives in science, observes that there is an inherent excitement in
competing, which can spur creativity and innovative ideas (Frey, 2012). Evidence from the survey
showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation moved students to varying degrees to enter the
competition. Prizes motivated some students, while others reported being motivated by the opportunity
to develop standing with their peers and/or their teachers. The opportunity to communicate findings was
another feature that many students appreciated, and data from video forum discussions showed that
interactions with peers and judges deepened the learning of many. In addition, public recognition and the

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
413
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
social media aspect of the competition in the video forum both enhanced the opportunity for students to
realize the recognition from peers and teachers that they sought.
As Falk and colleagues have observed, researchers cite receiving feedback and networking with others,
promoting communication skills and collaboration between group members, and creative assessment
opportunities as some of the benefits of participating in traditional poster sessions (Aust & Kinnick,
1996; Johnson & Green, 2007; Stegemann & Sutton-Brady, 2009; Sisak, 1997, cited in Stroud & Falk,
2015). These same benefits accrued to participants in the Innovate competition.
From the perspective of designers, the structure of the competition presented us with a tension between
wanting to support sustained engagement versus attracting many participants. The first Challenge
supported intensive and sustained engagement that motivated participants to engage with complex
science and real science practices, and elicited innovation, but only a handful of teams completed their
submissions. On the other hand, the structure of the second Challenge supported higher participation,
generated innovative ideas, and supported some crowdsource-like interactions, but team engagement in
more authentic science practices was limited. This finding will necessitate a careful reexamination of
the goals for the competition before deciding on future structures. Do we want to value broad
participation or the in-depth doing of science? Is there a design that could optimize both, and, if so,
what would that be?
4.1 Limitations
Crowdsourcing. Our original design decision was to maintain a crowdsourcing approach by making all
the ideas submitted during the qualifying round open for any team to appropriate and develop for the
final round. However, extensive discussions about what level of student motivation one might expect
from students for an idea that was not their own, and feelings of ownership of the ideas they had
submitted, led us to the decision to limit participation in the final round to the originators of qualifying
ideas only. The practical result of this decision, however, was that teams worked individually on their
projects, and had limited opportunities for the kinds of collaboration that Howe (2008) describes in
commercial or competitive crowdsourcing settings.
Constraints of school culture. Where schools are facing intense pressures related to standards and
accountability, interactions between student, teachers, and content are constrained, and the intellectual
and professional space for building independent work into classroom activities is limited. For a truly
open innovation and crowdsourced competition to be successfully supported in schools, teachers would
need to pay greater attention to social skills and cultural competencies (Jenkins & Halverson, 2009;
Kafai & Peppler, 2011). In addition, teachers would need to move students through the various stages
of work—defining a design, problem-solving and iterating, developing arguments in support of
explanations (Reiser, 2013; Kolodner et al., 2004)—and deal with students’ failure and frustration
(Hmelo-Silver et al., 2000). The kinds of support teachers need is a topic for further study.

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
414
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
4.2 Conclusion
Taken together, the data indicate that the Challenge provided an engaging and authentic scientific
experience for participants. We conclude that regular competitions such as Innovate to Mitigate have
powerful potential if added to the repertoire of learning environments that are possible in school
ecosystems.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation under grant number
DRL-1316225. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
Akhurst, A. (2016). How algae could change the fossil fuel industry. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from
http://www.seeker.com/how-algae-could-change-the-fossil-fuel-industry-2022553403.html
American Psychology Association. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a
multifaceted phenomenon and set of challenges. In Task force on the interface between psychology
and global climate change. Retrieved August, 2011, from
http://www.apa.org/science/climate-change
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2010). Sustainability
curriculum in higher education. A call to action. Retrieved November, 2016, from
http://www.aashe.org/files/ A_Call_to_Action_final(2).pdf
Baldwin, J. A., Ebert-May, D., & Burns, D. (1999). The development of a college biology self-efficacy
instrument for non-majors. Science Education, 83(4), 397-408.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199907)83:4<397::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-#
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Powerful Learning: Studies Show Deep Understanding
Derives from Collaborative Methods. Retrieved June, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/
inquiry-project-learning-research
Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2011).
Using Social Networking for Online Role-Plays to Develop
Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45, 165-181.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.2.c
Boss, S., Johanson, C., Arnold, S. D., Parker, W. C., Nguyen, D., Mosborg, S., Nolen, S., … Bransford, J.
(2011). The quest for deeper learning and engagement in advanced high school courses. The
Foundation Review, 3(3), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-11-00007
Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving. Convergence: The
International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14, 75-90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507084420
Bull, G., Thompson, A., Dearson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
415
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
informal and formal learning experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues
in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 100-107.
Drayton, B., & Puttick, G. (2017). Innovate to Mitigate: Learning as activity in a team of high school
students addressing a climate mitigation challenge (Unpublished manuscript).
Eagleman, D. (2013). Why public dissemination of science matters: A manifesto. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 33, 12147-12149. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2556-13.2013
Ebert, J. (2016). Breakthroughs in green gasoline production. Biomass magazine. Retrieved November,
2016, from
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/1731/breakthroughs-in-green-gasoline-production/
Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design
challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(pp. 335-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, J., Stroud, R., Drayton, B., & Hobbs, K. (2012). Virtual poster competition: Benefits and
drawbacks. Presentation at American Educational Research Association annual meeting,
Vancouver BC.
Frey, T. (2012). A brief history of prize incentives: Why we need to compete. Futurist, 46, 19.
Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of research in education,
25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167322
Gee, J. (2005). Learning by Design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning and Digital
Media, 2, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5
Gee, J. (2011). Beyond mindless progressivism. Retrieved November, 2012, from
http//www.jamespaulgee.com/
Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn college science. In J. J. Mintzes, & W. H.
Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of College Science Teaching (pp. 25-32). Arlington, VA: National
Science Teachers Association Press.
Greenhow, C., & Burton, L. (2011). Help from my “friends”: Social capital in the social network
sites of low-income students.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45, 223-245.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.2.f
Greenhow, C., Robelia, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and educational research: What path do we
take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671
Gunaratna, S. (2016). Accidental discovery could be renewable energy breakthrough. Retrieved
November 1, 2016, from http//www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-make-potential-breathrough/
Henry, B. A. (2016). Social media accelerates science. The Scientist Magazine, November issue.
Retrieved November, 2016, from
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47281/title/Social-Media-Accelerates-Scien
ce/
Himanen, P. (2001). The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. New York: Random

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
416
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
House.
Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New
York NY: Random House.
Hughes, B. (2016). How social media is reshaping today’s education system. Retrieved September,
2017, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/ article/273044
Inno Centive, Inc. (2011). White paper: Solving the world’s toughest challenges in grand fashion.
Retrieved January, 2012, from http:
//innocentive.com/white-paper-solving-worlds-toughest-challenges-grand- fashion
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2016). The Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Fifth Assessment Report. New York NY: United Nations.
Kahn, M. E., & Kotchen, M. J. (2010). Environmental concern and the business cycle: The chilling
effect of recession. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research WP 16241.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit
inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
King, A., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using open innovation to identify the best ideas. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55, 41-49.
Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-Based Learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-334). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lakhani, K., Jeppesen, L., Lohse, P., & Panetta, J. (2007). The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem
Solving. Retrieved January, 2017, from http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-050.pdf
Leiserowitz, A. A., & Smith, N. (2010). Knowledge of climate change across global warming’s six
Americas. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on
Climate Change Communication.
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media and technology. Retrieved October, 2016, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Lenhart, A., & Madden, A. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Retrieved March 11, 2012,
from http://www.pewinternet.org/2005/11/02/teen-content-creators-and-consumers/
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile internet use among
teens and young adults. Retrieved January, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/
Social_Media_and_Young_Adults
Luckin, R. (2010). Redesigning learning context: Technology-rich, learner-centered ecologies. London:
Routledge.
McGrail, B. P., Schaef, H. T., Spane, F. A., Cliff, J. B., Qafoku, O., Horner, J. A., … Sullivan, C. E.
(2016). Field validation of supercritical CO2 reactivity with basalts. Environmental Science and
Technology Letters.
McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
417
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
science. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Mielke, M., LaFleur, J., Butler, A., & Sanzone, J. (2012). 4-H Science Initiative: Youth Engagement,
Attitudes, and Knowledge Study. National 4-H Council.
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington DC: National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2010). Limiting the magnitude of climate change. Washington DC:
National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
Passmore, C., & J. Stewart (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high
schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10020
Pew. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015. Retrieved November, 2016, from
http//www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/pi_2015-04-09_teens
andtech_02/
Ravitz, J. (2009). Introduction: Summarizing Findings and Looking Ahead to a New Generation of PBL
Research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3, 4-11.
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1088
Roth, W-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science
Education, 88, 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113
Rowson, J. (2013). A new agenda on climate change. London: The Royal Society for the
Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending limits of the possible in
education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K, Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269-272). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Snow, C. E., & Dibner, K. A. (Eds.). (2016). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences.
Committee on Science Literacy and Public Perception of Science; Board on Science Education;
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595
Strobel, J., & von Barneveld, A. (2009).
When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of
Meta-analyses: Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.
Stroud, R., & Falk, J. (2015). Benefits of an Online Video Competition for Participants, Community
Members, and the Public. Paper presented at NARST Annual Conference, Baltimore MD, April
2015.
Surowieki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York NY: Doubleday.
Tachibana, C. (2014). A scientists’ guide to social media. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/features/ 2014/02/ scientists-guide-social-media

http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017
418
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
Whelan, E., Morgan, L., Conboy, K., Rossi, M., & Crowston, K. (2014). Editorial: The role of
information systems in enabling open innovation. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 15.
Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education. Is it effective and how does
it achieve its effects? American Education Research Journal, 48, 1157-1186.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419491
Zelinski, S. (2014). Scientists Can Find Outreach Success with Social Media. Retrieved November,
2016, from https://www.aaas.org/news/scientists-can-find-outreach-success-social-media
Note
Note 1. STEM Videohall funded by NSF/DGE 083499, NSF/DRL 124055.