Breakout Session A1,Partnerships Between Levels of Education

• Partnerships among different levels of education• Education in BE:K-12 schools and universities:• Key concern: organized with infrastructure for continuity• In universities• In K12 schools• In other institutions• Among universities

Session A1

In the university context:• Integrate K12 teachers as part of proposal submission• HS Teacher-Univ faculty partnership in professional develop

course• Teachers in research settings• Students (high school, middle school) in research settings• Train teachers while they are still in school• Lesson plans developed in collaboration among teachers, grad

students, and U faculty– GK12 model– Science squad

Session A1

In the school context:• Scientists in classrooms• University faculty visits• Grad students work with teachers on lesson plans, carry out plans• Undergrad visits• Initiated by universities or by K12 schools

Session A1

Other institutions, outreach partners• Collaborate with museums – they have infrastructure• e.g., after school program• public demonstration or open house

Session A1

University partners:• Exchange graduate students• Faculty as external mentors for students across universities

Session A1

ISSUES:• How do you fund the teacher partners?• How do you develop an appreciation and understanding of

“Biocomplexity” ?• How can this be made “safe” for junior faculty and graduate

students? • How disseminate successful partnerships and programs?• National STEM digital library – NSDL • DLESE - reviewed and un-reviewed lesson plans • Must be sensitive to National, State and local standards

Session A1

How can BE contribute to mentoring and training students in research?

Big issues:• How to integrate interdisciplinary and disciplinary foci• How to provide students on large Biocomplexity projects with their

own research identity.

Session A2:Bridging Research and Education: Partnerships among different levels

of education.

• Successful partnerships take advantage of existing programs.• Finding a common language with stakeholder groups is critical.• Interdisciplinary graduate training is different, but is the ‘T’ model outdated?• Success stories should be communicated to the BE community by NSF.

Session A2:Successful partnerships take advantage of existing programs.

• Dedicated professionals are required to make outreach efforts move forward.

– Many examples of successful K-12 engagements, all partnered with existing programs.

– Recruitment of under-represented minorities similarly involved.• This requires significant institutional commitment. • How do we find the optimal engagement (synergism) between basic science and K-12

education?

– How big a role can and should PIs play?– Should NSF or the BE community articulate a vision?

Session A2:Finding a common language with stakeholder groups is critical.

• Working with industry/business groups requires effective communication and trust.• Can BE objectives and profit motive of business be bridged?

– Some success stories, often build from existing programs or leverage other projects.

• Media people are a key constituency to involve in BE educational outreach.• Budgetary flexibility is very useful to take advantage of unexpected partnering

opportunities.

Session A2:Interdisciplinary graduate training is different, but is the ‘T’ model

outdated?

• Can anyone have a thorough command of the stem disciplines anymore?

• Are the most broadly trained students the most successful?

– Perhaps yes, but students are generally very concerned about the perceived strength of their ‘base’.

Session A2:Success stories should be communicated to the BE community by

NSF.

• Posting examples of successful K-12 and other educational partnerships, and recruitment activities to a public web site.

• Need a vehicle to collect and disseminate the experiences and perspectives of the students we are training.

Breakout Session A3:Partnerships Among Levels of Education

• Sense of Urgency

1. “Isn’t that really cool index” is high

2. Appeals to people closely connected to land and water relevant for their life

3. Opportunity to take people out and get their hands dirty and talk to experts

4. Teach EPA, Corps of Engineers through partnering institutions (Shiping Deng and Alfred Hubler)

Session A3

Importance• Teach team-based interdisciplinary research at an early age

– More people which recognize the importance of science applications

– Better and more young scientists– Better interdisciplinary PI’s

• Research in rural areas and reservations– Reach out and benefit from people with different perspectives

• Education policy makers– More science support

• Educate private sector– More collaborations

• Impact is important for our future

Session A3

How to Bridge?• Data Presentation

– Web pages:• Advertise project• Educate ($)• Graduate Students: simple creative interactive element

• Workshops for Policy Makers (includes “lowers” (?))– Incentives ($)– Target Sectors

• TV Journalists: Internships ($)• Museums as a role model and partner• Collection of Table Top Experiments with Handbook

Session A3

Successful Examples• Kenan Institute for Science Education for Science Teachers (NC)• Flathead Lake Bio. Station Tribal Youth Program• UTeach at UT Austin: set of courses for teachers• Explanatorium – Exploratorium• Children’s Museum Indianapolis• Children’s Museum Sante Fe

Session A3

Over the Energy Barrier?• Implementation Needs Resources (% of Grant)• Bridging Requires Work on Both Sides ($)

Breakout Session A4:Biocomplexity in the Environment

• Common Themes– Need to learn how to work in groups

• Learn from other disciplines (Business Administration)• Case Studies

– We need to convey the notion of discovery– Biocomplexity a good “motivational” source of examples for traditional

disciplines• Expensive: time and money

– Institutional inertia (set curricula, schedules)– Need incentives

• Environment: Provides a unique opportunity– All around us– Need to learn to emphasize what is around us; not just the exotic (deep

sea, etc.)

Session A4

• Biocomplexity requires (at least some) Math

• K-12– Biocomplexity can be a source of examples– Should target teachers (R.E.T.)– Group Projects– Can involve students using web

• Undergraduate– Project oriented courses (Terrascope, ship trips)– Need to convey notion that problems are open ended– IGERT

• Graduate: New courses targeted

Problem

Theory

Issues in Formal Education• testing standards being promulgated for K-12 education at state and national levels are a barrier to interdisciplinary education such as would occur with biocomplexity

• teacher training may offer opportunities to bring biocomplexity to teachers of different subjects (who may then coordinate teaching)

• biocomplexity websites can be easily picked up by K-12 and other teachers. Digital libraries (DLESE) can provide resources as well. Biocomplexity programs should be aware that there is funding to provide research experience for K-12 teachers.

• while incorporating biocomplexity into our undergraduate curricula, don’t want to lose sight of the fact that we believe these students should get depth in an area – we want to enrich but not dilute their focus. Biocomplexity can be a way to open new doors to students – it introduces them to interdisciplinarity as an attractive way to look at the world.

• capstone courses can provide opportunities for formal interdisciplinary education. Formalized summer/field opportunities may also work well. Some programs are requiring early (freshman) interdisciplinary seminars.

BREAKOUT SESSION A5: Biocomplexity in the Environment

Issues in Formal Education

• virtual campus associations (e.g., Princeton’s Environmental Institute) can gather faculty across disciplinary lines and create programs – degree granting, certificate granting, whatever – that provide interested students with a way of developing interdisciplinary interests

• IGERT and other training programs may exist at universities with biocomplexity projects, with no links among these – leverage training programs that are already in place.

• informal educational opportunities might profitably be linked to formal educational opportunities to channel younger students into science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) at the college level.

SESSION A5

Breakout Session A6:Outreach and Dissemination Strategies

Report of NSF Outbreak Group

BE Awardees Meeting

September 15, 2003

Session A6: Conclusion

• Biocomplexity in the Environment Awardees have unique potential to demonstrate “how science actually works” to the public, students and policy makers

Properly exploited, weakness in research becomes potential strength for outreach

Session A6: Traditional Research vs. Biocomplexity

Reductionist Holistic

Small Teams Large Cast

Minimized interactions Maximized

Likely outcome(s) known More Surprises

Lower risk/few failures Higher risk/

few failures more failures

= Boredom = “Reality” Drama

Session A6: Recommendations-Researchers

• People identify with failure:

• High interest in personalities/interaction

show painful setbacks as well as success to better illustrate true scientific process (web hits go way up if you lose expensive equipment!!)

Use as a “hook” to interest in science

Illustrate how each team member became involved, their individual trials and tribulations, interactions with others

Session A6: Recommendations-Researchers

• Demonstrate that broad knowledge and interaction is useful

– potential appeal to non-traditional personalities– demonstrate “before” myopic perspectives– if the whole actually becomes greater than the parts (the miracle!)...get that

message across– connect back to linear progress in disciplines

• BE projects are more important to real people

– can pull in a broader target audience

Session A6: Recommendations-NSF

• Supplemental outreact grants to BE Awardees

– develop new ideas that evolve during project (much more likely for BE)

• provide WEB links and dissemination of other outreach content for BE products….gives new awardees templates and ideas of what works

Breakout Session A7: Outreach and Dissemination Strategies and Plusses and Minusses

1. Institutional Person Responsible (Govt Lab)

2. Advisory Board

3. Cooperative Extension

4. Nontraditional (older) Graduate Student

5. Local Stakeholder Group

6. Client Based Course

Session A7

• Institutional Person (Govt Lab)– Easy to Implement– Not Easily transferrable

Session A7

• Advisory Board– Natural Tie In– Issues with getting PI’s to “buy in” – need a cultural change

Session A7

• Cooperative Extension– Part of job description, easy to implement– Could be used by People at other institutions– Does not transfer to all institutions; culture of Cooperative

Extension

Session A7

• Non-traditional Grad Students (using a particular model for a game reserve)– Easy access to game reserve– Transfer to private landowners

Session A7

• Local Stakeholder Groups– Provides good access to community and influential individuals– Conflicts among groups– Groups may give you only a short time, may be hard to get

across complex ideas quickly; users may expect more than can be delivered

Session A7

• Client-Based Course– Graduate Students like this, real access to problems – build on

landscape, architecture, tradition– Issue of fitting in with time constraints on academic setting

Session A7

• Overall– Graduate Students may be more interested in applied issues

and outreach– Web-based outreach can be useful, but need to be tailored and

simple enough.

What is outreach/ What is NSF looking for?

How is outreach being done in different groups?

How can we be more effective?

Recommendations:

•Have person/ group dedicated to outreach•Supplemental grants•Evaluation research/ Output vs. outcomes•Explicit acknowledgment in “Results from Prior Support”•Develop “tool box”

BREAKOUT SESSION A8: Outreach and Dissemination Strategies