Breakout Session A1 , Partnerships Between Levels of Education

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Session A1 Other institutions, outreach partners • Collaborate with museums – they have infrastructure • e.g., after school program • public demonstration or open house

5. Session A1 University partners: • Exchange graduate students • Faculty as external mentors for students across universities

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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 • Interdisciplinary graduate training is different, but is the ‘T’ model outdated?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.

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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’.

12. 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.

13. Breakout Session A3:Partnerships Among Levels of Education • Sense of Urgency • “Isn’t that really cool index” is high • Appeals to people closely connected to land and water  relevant for their life • Opportunity to take people out and get their hands dirty and talk to experts • Teach EPA, Corps of Engineers through partnering institutions (Shiping Deng and Alfred Hubler)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Session A3 Over the Energy Barrier? • Implementation Needs Resources (% of Grant) • Bridging Requires Work on Both Sides ($)

18. 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.)

19. Problem Theory 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

20. BREAKOUT SESSION A5: Biocomplexity in the Environment 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.

21. Issues in Formal Education SESSION A5 • 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.

22. Breakout Session A6:Outreach and Dissemination Strategies Report of NSF Outbreak Group BE Awardees Meeting September 15, 2003

23. Session A6: Conclusion • Biocomplexity in the Environment Awardees have unique potential to demonstrate “how science actually works” to the public, students and policy makers

24. 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

25. Session A6: Recommendations-Researchers 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 • People identify with failure: • High interest in personalities/interaction

26. 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

27. 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

28. Breakout Session A7: Outreach and Dissemination Strategies and Plusses and Minusses • Institutional Person Responsible (Govt Lab) • Advisory Board • Cooperative Extension • Nontraditional (older) Graduate Student • Local Stakeholder Group • Client Based Course

29. Session A7 • Institutional Person (Govt Lab) • Easy to Implement • Not Easily transferrable

30. Session A7 • Advisory Board • Natural Tie In • Issues with getting PI’s to “buy in” – need a cultural change

31. 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

32. Session A7 • Non-traditional Grad Students (using a particular model for a game reserve) • Easy access to game reserve • Transfer to private landowners

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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.

36. BREAKOUT SESSION A8: Outreach and Dissemination Strategies 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”