The role of co-coordinator in environmental conservation activities ― Learning through an internship ―

Mai Onishi1,a, Emi Morimoto1, Toshiaki Sawada2, Mahito Kamada1

1 The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan 2 Environmental and Town Planning Co.Ltd., Kamikatsu town, Tokushima Pref., Japan

a bnhpp265@ybb.ne.jp

Abstract The University of Tokushima has an educational program which offers long- term internship opportunities on (at a company or the government) to graduate students in engineering. Onishi, one of authors, is studying environmental conservation at the university. She is interested in environmental conservation activities led by residents. Striking a balance between environmental conservation and human economic activities is seen as important to project world. Therefore, we think that it is equally most important to continue environmental conservation activities. Residents, academic experts, and other person motivate actors need to collaborate. A person called “co-coordinator” is a key to make many people to participate in the sustainable environmental conservation activities. The main role of co-coordinator is connecting people who are interested in environmental conservation activities. The purpose of joining in environmental conservation activities is different from person to person depending on where they belong to or where they live. Onishi took part in the educational program to learn the techniques of adjusting the differing interests. She did her internship at environmental consulting company in Kamikatsu town, Tokushima prefecture. This town is famous for “zero-emission”. She participated in several environmental conservation activities and work experience as a coordinator. Through this experience, she learned not only the technique but also the difficulty of the work. For example, telling through in proper words or understanding the position of each organization was difficult for her. On the other hand, she felt strongly that she would take up this work as her lifework. This paper reports the results obtained from her experience. 1. Introduction In recent years, skills of facilitation for the discussion are used in a wide range of areas. For example, the skills are used for activities on environmental conservation or local revitalization. It is necessary to build a consensus of many people. Why do all people need to build consensus? Generally speaking, “consensus building” is a communication process that shares thoughts of actors or adjusts opinions for the decision making and action among members. There are social issues such as declining birthrate, a growing proportion of elderly people, stringent fiscal conditions and diversification of individual values in Japan. Citizens, governments and academic experts have to promote collaborative projects by addressing these issues. Promoting collaborative projects can enhance the satisfactory results and keep these projects going. By “collaboration” here, various actors equally discuss and act to solve the problems. Therefore, we think it is necessary for all people to arrive at an agreement. 1.1. Motivational goal of participation in long- term internshipOnishi, one of the authors, is studying an environmental conservation at the University of Tokushima. She is interested in environmental conservation activities led by residents. Participants of the environmental conservation activities differ in purposes or interests. Skills of a co-coordinator are coordination of differing interests for through these activities. She took part in the educational program to learn the skills of adjusting the differing interests.

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 1

1.2. Internship with company Environmental and Town Planning Co.Ltd. (ETP) is an environmental consulting company in Kamikatsu town, Tokushima Prefecture. This company supports and suggests consensus building to revitalize environmental conservation based on activities in Tokushima prefecture. Onishi decided to do her internship with ETP company. 1.3. The relationship and role among actors Fig.1 shows the relationship among mentor, professor, support room and a student in long-term internship. Mentor and professor have common goals and objectives to pursue problems. They are going to solve the problems in different standpoints, but they are working close to each other. A student learns solution of social problems from various perspectives by receiving instructions from mentor and professor. Support room coordinates to make her internship flow more smoothly. Table 1 shows the role of mentor, professor, support room and a student in this internship.

Goals and objectives of pursuit problems

Student

Professor

Support Room

Mentor

Reporting

Reporting

Taking Counsel

Coordination

Coordination CoordinationInstruction

Contribution of labor

Instruction Instruction

Fig.1: The relationship among actors in long-term internship

Table 1: The role of actors in long-term internship Actor Role Mentor • Accepting for an internship student

• Giving instructions to a student • Solving social problems

Professor • Giving instructions and advice to a student • Solving of social problems

Support Room • Giving advice to a student • Coordination among actors

Student • Promoting (Stimulating) collective purposes • Enhancing relationship between mentors and professors • Taking a quick action to solve a problem • Realizing social problems and trying to solve them • Growing up as an engineer

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 2

2. Schedule and contents for the internship She received her internship one day per week from April to March (Fig.2). She learned the skills of promoting collaboration by participating in several environmental conservation or local revitalization activities. For example, activities in she participated “Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station”, “Meeting to revitalize Mugi town”, “Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima” and “Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization” (Fig.3, picture 1-3). These activities are collaboration with residents, academic experts, and the governments. Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station, Meeting to revitalize Mugi town and Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization were local revitalization activities organized using available local resources. She recorded and assisted workshop. In Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima, participants discussed to suggest the civil opinions to development of the Biodiversity Strategy of Tokushima. She worked as a facilitator and made plans for the program of workshop. In these internships, she learned the skills to facilitate the discussion of various actors. Through her experience presented, it is important and difficult to feel manage, design and build consensus in activities. Also, she could learned practical visualization about collaboration through experience of field sights. On the other hand, she examined literatures and cases about collaboration. These literatures and cases were discussed by Onishi, Sawada and academic experts. For example, “What is collaboration?”, “Why are collaborative activities being continued?” As the results, they defined the word of “collaboration” and the element of sustained collaborative activities (Table 2). They study’s results in a poster session of conference organized by Japan Science and Technology Agency. She learned that there are a variety of field and different type of collaboration activities. Fig.4 is summarized to get skills through the field sights and discussion.

Sep.

Apr. May Jun. Jul.

Aug. Oct. Nov.

Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.

2010

•Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station

•Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station •Meeting to revitalize Mugitown •PCM course in IDEA Consultants, Inc.

•Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station

•Discussion about “collaboration”

•JST symposium•Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima

•Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima•Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization

•Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima•Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization

•Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima•Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station

•Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization•Facilitation course in Akita

2011

Fig.2: Schedule and contents of her internship

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 3

Closeup

Tokushima Pref.

Meeting to revitalize Mugi town

Kamikatsu town

Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station

Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima

Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization

Fig.3: Location of each activity

Table 2: The definition of “collaboration” and the element of sustained collaborative activities Meaning of “collaboration” � Sharing purpose of activities

� Being able to decision-making by themselves

The element of sustained collaborative activities

� Co-coordination � Passion for activities � Social-capital � Skills � Sustainable supply of funds � Social network

Picture 1: Conference of revitalization in front of Kamojima station

Picture 3: Workshop about Bandai wharf revitalization

Picture 2: Conference on biodiversity of Tokushima

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 4

Theory from literatures

Experience of field sights

Obtaining abilities

The job of co-coordinator

Co-coordination Schedule management

Contacting related actors

Gathering information

Arrangement the problems

Earning activity funds

Gathering information

Skill of arrangement the problems

Ability of building up trustful relations

Understandability of the explanation

Understandability of the explanation

Ability of communication

Fig. 4: Obtaining abilities through the field sights and discussion 3. After an internship evaluations 3.1. Evaluation of presentation from acceptance corporation After her internship, she made a presentation what to learn through an internship in ETP. She delivered lecture by using powerpoint presentation (ppt), and then she answered questions. At that time, four ETP staffs juried those items as such in Table 4 and 5. Fig. 5 and 6 show evaluation of staffs.

3.2. Consideration 3.2.1. Evaluation of Contents The items were evaluated from 1 to 5 point (pt) by four staffs. The higher score shows receiving good evaluation, but the lower score shows receiving negative evaluation. The graph of Fig.5 shows that the high score items means higher evaluation. The average is 4.06 pt about these evaluations. She received high evaluation in most of these items. The highest score is 4.50 of Q1-3(Realizing background of social problem) and Q1-6(Arrangement and of problems). She thought that being able to realize background of social problems are cause through field sights and the discussion about Q1-3. About Q1-6, skill of making speech easier to understand was gotten by presenting the results in the conference. The lowest score is 3.00 of Q1-2(Fact and numerical number). It is due to use numerical data and subjectively her presentation about Q1-2. Therefore, her presentation has the potential to not prompting intuitive realization. Also, Q1-5(Fact and numerical number) is lower than the average of evaluation (score is 3.75). She tried to find common factor cause without cut to the individual cases but she could not summarize. So, she couldn’t describe the relation to cases and social backgrounds that we should solve the social problems.

3.2.2. Evaluation of Manner The items were evaluated from 1 to 5 pt by four staffs, as is the case in evaluation of contents. The higher score shows receiving her good evaluation, but the lower score shows receiving her negative evaluation. The average value is 4.28 pt about these evaluations. As is the case in Table 4, she was highly evaluated. The highest evaluation is 5.00 pt of

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 5

Q2-6(Questions and answers) in all the items. We presume that she was regarded with high evaluation by them because she tried a polite answer. Sawada is mentor. He is always politely answered questions. She came to try a polite answer through his job. On the contrary, the lowest evaluation is 3.75 pt of Q2-4(Imposing deportment). We think that eye contact or posture of presentation effected in evaluation.

3.2.3. Total Evaluation Table 6 shows total evaluation. Her score in total evaluation is 4.25 pt. Her score is 0.26pt higher than other students in the University of Tokushima. Of these, score

results of Evaluation of Contents is 4.5 pt, and Evaluation of Manner is 4.25 pt. Her evaluation score of contents is 0.57pt higher than other students. Her evaluation score of manner is 0.3pt higher than other students. As the results, she thinks that it is useful to see her activities by looking back her records and to decide her learning course in the future.

4.25

3.00

4.50

4.00

3.75

4.50

4.33

4.00

4.25

3.67

0.00

2.50

5.00 Q1-01

Q1-02

Q1-03

Q1-04

Q1-05

Q1-06

Q1-07

Q1-08

Q1-09

Q1-10

n=4μ=4.06 4.5

4.25

4

3.75

45

4.5

4.25

0

2.5

5Q2-01

Q2-02

Q2-03

Q2-04

Q2-05

Q2-06

Q2-07

Q2-08

n=4μ=4.28

Table 6: Total evaluation results Total Evaluation Evaluation of Contents Evaluation of Manner

4.25 4.5 4.25

Fig 6: Evaluation items (manner of presentation)

Table 5: Evaluation items (manner of presentation)

Q2 Evaluation of MannerQ2-1 Allocation of time Q2-2 Sense a change of mood Q2-3 Speaking manner and speed Q2-4 Imposing deportment Q2-5 Loudness of voice Q2-6 Questions and answers Q2-7 Preparation and practice of presentationQ2-8 Adequacy of a language

Table 4: Evaluation items (contents of presentation)

Q1 Evaluation of ContentsQ1-1 Establishing the destination in an internship Q1-2 Fact and numerical number Q1-3 Realizing background of social problem Q1-4 Problems and assignments Q1-5 Problems and social condition Q1-6 Arrangement and of problems Q1-7 Association between causes and effects Q1-8 Technical theory of association between causes and effects Q1-9 Unity of colors and writing style Q1-10 Visual presentation

Fig 5: Evaluation items (contents of presentation)

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 6

3.3. Self-evaluation before and after an internship She evaluated herself before and after her internship from 1 to 5pt about items of Table 7. Fig.6 shows that how each items changed before and after her internship. This graph is gotten as below formula.

Score= (score of after internship) - (score of before internship) Score=0 (score of after internship)= (score of before internship) Score>0 (score of after internship)< (score of before internship) Score<0 (score of after internship)> (score of before internship)

If she feels “growing up”, each items change a plus (to right side from the vertical line in the center). But, if she feels “lacking”, each items change a minus (to left side on the line). All items changed a plus about Basic ability and Business ability. However, there are changing minus items about Will for training and Sociability. According to this result, she came to look at things objectivity herself. She realized that she must ameliorate the items changed to a minus thorough the training in the field sights.

Table 7: Self-evaluation items

1. Basic ability1-1 Schedule management 1-2 Reporting, communicating and taking counsel 1-3 Movement based on a sense of safety 1-4 Overall evaluation for fundamentals 2. Will for training2-1 Receptivity for suggestions 2-2 Challenging attitude 2-3 Respect for an experience of a leader 2-4 Enterprising spirit 2-5 Questing mind 2-6 Sense of responsibility 2-7 Overall evaluation for the will for training 3. Sociability3-1 Response and use of words 3-2 Correspondence to strangers 3-3 Talking with the leader about own failure 3-4 Emotional stability 3-5 Sense of mission in the organization 3-6 Overall evaluation for the sociability 4. Business ability4-1 Proposal ability and creative power 4-2 Expertise 4-3 Powers of concentration; Ability to concentrate 4-4 Persevering attitude for solving a problem 4-5 Overall evaluation for the business ability 5. Overall evaluation

-1 0 1 2

5

4-5

4-4

4-3

4-2

4-1

3-6

3-5

3-4

3-3

3-2

3-1

2-7

2-6

2-5

2-4

2-3

2-2

2-1

1-4

1-3

1-2

1-1

Fig. 7: Results of self-evaluation

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 7

4. Evaluation of education by university- industry relation depend on a student’s viewpoint

This education program has the maximum merit that students are able to develop greatness. They can find out what’s lacking themselves for play an actively role in society. On the contrary, if it reduces the chance of learning, the students don’t have relationship among mentor. The students have to grasp what they want to learn. Also the mentors need to understand this educational program. One of solution we proffer is having the opportunity to share each other’s thoughts and experience. Other demerit is difficulty of handling intellectual property. It is important for the students to get more understanding of intellectual property by exercises.

5. Conclusion Onishi experienced a lot of different things through internship program. There are three biggest changes for her. First, she came to be able to enjoy learning, and realize growth process by herself and have the larger purposes.Second, she has come to interpret her failures and listen to the suggestions from other people approvingly, so she changed to try many things. Finally, she came to clarify her goals in the future to relate a variety of people. She has felt want to take up the work like connecting people as her lifework through her growth. To that end, we are making efforts to approach the goals based on that experience and evaluation of this internship.

6. Reference 1. Mariko Sakamoto, Toshiaki Sawada, Junko Sanada, Hideo Yamanaka, “Problems in cultural

landscape at “Terraced rice field of Kashihara”, 6th Conference for architecture of Infrastructure and Environment, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 330-337

2. The University of Tokushima (May, 2010). “Reports on the implementation of cooperative development for the πtype engineers with business sense from 2006 to 2009”

PS - 16 ACEE 2011

2nd Asian Conference on Engineering Education (ACEE 2011) The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan October, 7-9, 2011

PS - 16 : 8