# Presentation: 193319

## 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- Interdisciplinary graduate training *is* different, but is the ‘T’ model outdated?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
- “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)

## 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

## 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

- Institutional Person Responsible (Govt Lab)
- Advisory Board
- Cooperative Extension
- Nontraditional (older) Graduate Student
- Local Stakeholder Group
- 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”

- 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