Initiative for Research and Innovation in Science

1. Initiative for Research and Innovation in Science Observations from “Intel STDF” 2001-2005, “IRIS” 2006-2008 Arnab Bhattacharya Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Mumbai, India arnab@tifr.res.in Encouraging and mentoring research based science/engineering projects: the Indian experience

2. Outline • Why give this talk ? • Problems with science fairs in India, and finding research based projects • Creating the right awareness / mindset • Finding and mentoring good projects • Projects for ISEF – some things that seem to work • Discussion Try to convey the big picture today…

3. Why this shop talk? • India has been participating in ISEF since 1999 • From 2001, 6 projects (4 Individual, 2 Team) have represented India at ISEF • ISEF participation has been successful / useful • awards won • possible ISEF participation as a motivating factor • Observation : certain types of projects are generally more "likely to win at ISEF“ • How to identify, and mentor these Share our experience, might be useful, particularly for other countries with similar constraints and limited access to resources

4. Two major issues • Creating awareness, mindset for “research”-based projects • Creating framework for selection, evaluation, and mentoring Two key issues requiring the “scientist’s” inputs, lots of other issues – logistics, timing, affliation, awards… which are equally important!

5. Research based projects? Challenges: • Almost all local/national science fairs encourage model-making, pedagogical posters • Students, and teachers, not aware of simple research based ideas that can be turned into excellent projects • Evaluation of projects at school level fairs do not emphasize criteria appropriate for research • Prospective projects often get missed out! How to get around this?

6. “Running” a science fair Challenges: • Selection: choosing projects for the fair • Guidance: helping selected projects improve their level before the fair • Evaluation: judging projects at national fair • Mentoring: improving (scientific content, presentation) of projects selected for ISEF + other unforeseeable issues…

7. Target audience To popularize innovative research-based projects, need to work with • Students (easy!) • Teachers (tougher…) • Parents (think it’s a waste of time…) • Curriculum developers, school boards, governement (resistance to change…) has to be sold appropriately to each group!

8. Main selling points Why do such projects? • Much more fun and excitement • Not as difficult as you think • Doesn’t require huge investment ($, not effort/time) • Can get you (big) prizes • Looks good on resume… • Declining level of students entering university programmes in science

9. Not a standard school lab expt.! #1 Pitfall – most students/teachers think a research project is like an experiment done as part of the school curriculum! Experiments typically done (shown?) in high-schools are • Very routine and predictable • Usually planned to be completed in fixed time, with a pre-determined result that has to be demonstrated for “success” • The best way to turn off kids from science!

10. What is “research-based”? Usually • We don’t know the answer before starting out….. • So we ask questions, make hypotheses, make observations/ do experiments to prove or disprove our hypotheses… • No fixed end-point, can modify path of depending on what is done, and upon making interesting observations

11. My favorite example: Pendulum Lets take a simple exampleTypical school experiment: Oscillating pendulum – used to find the value of “g”, accl. due to gravity (we know students will somehow get g=9.8m/s2) No fun in this! What if….The pendulum bob is immersed in a bucket of water?

12. The modified pendulum experiment ….the pendulum bob is immersed in a bucket of water?! • What will happen??? • - Will the period change? How do I measure this? • - Will the amplitude change? Why? • - Will it depend on the amplitude of oscillation? • - Will the calculated value of “g” change? • - Will it be different if we use oil instead of water? Now we have questions to ask ourselves and think about

13. Modified Pendulum… • Most school teachers are themselves quite aghast at the problem! • Probably the most important job of a teacher / mentor is to provoke students to ask questions…

14. India’s Performance at Intel ISEF • India has been participating in Intel ISEF since 1999 • Reasonable performance

15. Steps to ISEF in India June- August September (1st week) September (3rd week) December January – April May

16. IRIS – Indian National Fair • The IRIS fair is the (so far only...) fair encouraging research based projects, and following ISEF judging criteria as far as possible • IRIS – typical numbers: • Approx. 1500 entries, only 250-300 worth evaluating • 100-150 projects finally show up at fair • Choose 6 for ISEF (can be tough!)

17. Filtering out… Try to eliminate projects which are just • Repeating a standard school science expt. • Making a wild hypothesis without personally doing any experiment • Writing an essay on science topic • Making unsubstantiated claims that violate known laws and principles of science • Simple posters and models explaining science/technology principles • Lifted directly from “science-fair” websites etc.

18. Age Categories • 3 age categories are defined for IRIS participation: • Category I: Std 5 – 8, Age <13 years • Category II: Std 9 – 12, Age < 20 years (ISEF) • Category III: College, Post Graduates, Research Associates Age < 35 yrs • Cat III is not evaluated at IRIS National Fair. It will have separate evaluation process as set up by CII & DST…

19. Participation Details for IRIS Groups: Individual or in Team of 2 Subject categories: Bio-chemistry, Botany, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth Science / Space Science, Environmental Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Zoology Call for participation: Entries to IRIS come through two routes

20. Direct Entry – Lifeline! • The direct entry route to the national fair has been the major source of most “winning” projects • Allows projects which do not make it in regional competition to still get a “fair chance” • This has been a lifesaver for many a project!

21. Workshops and Mentoring Workshops are held from for science teachers & students across the country by eminent scientist & academicians to popularize science and research! IRIS has a resource of over 100 mentors and have tied up with over 55 science labs across the country for project improvement and mentoring.

22. Target the teachers! • Experience shows that the science / math teachers play a key role • If they understand what a research based project is, a large student pool benefits • Teachers also usually “assign” students projects or determine who would participate • However, have to get around the “what’s in it for me” attitude…

23. What makes a good project? • Innovation / Novelty / Creativity (has to be there somewhere, maybe in a very limited way) • A structured, systematic approach to the problem • Well-documented work (log books) • An appreciation of the “what is so exciting about this”

24. So what gets through to ISEF? • often, rather simple projects… Some key “categories” that are seen repeatedly • analyzing traditional knowledge in a modern scientific context • locally-relevant "low-tech“ solutions to problems in the student's immediate environment • comprehensive mathematical/physical analyses of physical phenomena.

25. …and what typically doesn’t • “Not scientific” – measurements in teaspoons, not grams… • “significant digits” – my calculator has 9 decimal places… • “statistics” – A = 183.5, B=183.6, C=120.5 • “internet science” – I saw this on the net, and hence it must be correct… • “black box” – the instrument gives this number…

26. Mentoring! • IRIS – December 1st week • Exams – mid Dec. / mid March • Usually 9th and 11th grade participants are more “free” to work towards improving their projects • 10th and 12th grade students are completely focused on their exams (can’t help it…) • Project level in April is FAR better than at the fair

27. Mentoring! Opportunities for interaction with SRC • At national fair – comprehensive list of improvements • 3 coaching camps – Jan/March/pre-departure • Individual mentors often needed • Expt. – select 8 national fair winners, only 6 get to go to US – perhaps cruel, but the pressure works!

28. Common tips Helpful hints • Use available resources fully – anyone can be a guide • Maintain a log book – record of the thought process, and original data is a must! • Starting off with a hypothesis and proving it is incorrect can also be good science • Control experiments are often forgotten • Appropriate measurements – e.g “V only, no I” • Solid conclusions – repeatability, practicality, knowledge of limitations of data

29. Example 1 : Simplicity • A winning project does not always require expensive equipment, or a fancy laboratory to work in!ISEF 2006: Physics Grand Awards 2nd Prize winning project of Hamsa Padmanabhan

30. Simple projects: levitating pencil • What did Hamsa do? • Exquisitely detailed analysis of the physics of a simple arrangement of magnets on a pencil, demonstrating the basics of static magnetic levitation • All the “experiment” needed was a pencil, some ring magnets, thermocole etc., (but it was followed up with some very rigorous mathematical analysis!)

31. Specific mentoring issues: 1 For projects that rely on math./physical analysis… • rigorous testing and detailed understanding of all relevant background • Thorough checking of alternative solutions, prior work • Some thought into “could this be useful?” • “No” is perfectly acceptable! • Appreciation for why the understanding of the phenomenon is important

32. Example 2 : Engineering Innovation • Innovative Engineering Design – must work out all the nitty-gritty details and have final working product ISEF 2006: Engineering Grand Award winning project of Apurv Mishra

33. Innovative Engineering Design • Apurv Mishra, ISEF 2006 • Designed a sensitive device to pick up small movements of the muscles above the eyebrow • This enables patients who cannot speak, or do not have limbs to communicate • Made a variation that would enable them to use a computer mouse! • “Engineering” – not just science – actual prototype fabricated and tested on patients

34. Specific mentoring issues: 2 For engineering projects where “gadgets” are made • ENGINEERING design – why this length, why this voltage, why this particular chip used… • rigorous testing under field conditions – feasible/practical • thorough checking of alternative solutions, prior work • Cost? • Who did it?

35. Example 3 : Traditional Knowledge • “Ancient wisdom” re-analysed • Traditional Indian medicine (Ayurveda) or cultural references to a lot of natural remedies, procedures etc. which have not been analyzed using a modern “scientific method” • ISEF projects: • Custard apple seed/leaves • Coconut flower extract • Spices • Kusha grass • 2008 – see papaya leaf!

36. Termite resistant grass mats • Vaishnavi Vishwanathan, ISEF 2007 • Detailed analysis of termicidal properties of “kusha” grass (desmostachia bipinnata) • Analysis of various extraction techniques, attempts at identifying active component, control experiments…

37. Specific mentoring issues 3 For “traditional knowledge” projects • thorough checking of prior work – recently lots of work thanks to new patent regimes • Many plants etc. studied comprehensively • Why does it work? – often a synergistic combination of many factors, isolation of single ingredient can be close to impossible • Comparison with “alternative” (incl. cost) • Access to labs – beyond a point, need sophisticated standardized equipment • Statistics

38. Example 4 : Local Relevance • “Appropriate Technology” – typically low-cost solutions using easily available resources to solve local problems • Might appear “crude” or elementary but these projects are often the most useful ones • ISEF projects: • Foot operated 2-wheeler • Artificial limbs • Modified wheelchairs • Currency identifier

39. Modified wheelchair • Mukund Tiwari, ISEF 2006 • Modified a wheelchair to provide forelimb exercise for cerebral palsy patients • A cost effective solution that filled a need in his local environment • Used available contacts effectively

40. Specific Mentoring Issues: 4 • Most of these are crude – poor engineering design – drawings? rationale? materials? • Insufficient testing of device • Cost issues particularly for manufacture • Appropriate safeguards as human subjects are invariably involved • Standardized tests for benchmarking

41. Summary - 1 • Finding and mentoring good projects is easier if you know what to look for • Standard troubleshooting list sent to participants prior to fair can often help • Target the teachers! Once they figure it out, generations of students benefit • Direct entry of projects to a fair is a good idea

42. Summary - 2 • Standard recipes that have worked • Simple project analysing physics/math • Locally relevant innovative designs • Traditional knowledge analyzed scientifically • Finally, its not winning at ISEF that counts, it’s the journey!

43. Thank You! Questions? (feel free to email arnab@tifr.res.in anytime!)