Communicating Science to the Public through a ... - ACS Publications

Chemistry for Everyone

W

Communicating Science to the Public through a University–Museum Partnership Amy C. Payne,*† Wendy A. deProphetis, and Arthur B. Ellis Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706; *[email protected] Thomas G. Derenne Discovery World Museum, Milwaukee, WI 53233 Greta M. Zenner and Wendy C. Crone Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706

Motivation for the Program In the spring of 2002, the University of Wisconsin (UW) Internships in Public Science Education (IPSE) program began as a way to connect audiences of all ages to scientific expertise and cutting-edge research that might not otherwise be available to them. Graduate and undergraduate interns designed hands-on, interactive activities that use basic science concepts to explain cutting-edge nanotechnology concepts. The UW IPSE program is a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded collaboration between the UW Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) on Nanostructured Materials and Interfaces, and Discovery World, The James Lovell Museum of Science, Economics, and Technology (DW) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Discovery World is Wisconsin’s largest science center. The UW MRSEC and DW partnership addresses a call made recently by the National Research Council in Beyond the Molecular Frontier, which posits that in order to increase effective communication of science, scientists must expand their working networks to include individuals from other sectors, such as industry, government, and the public (1). Several groups have done this through the development of museum exhibits (2, 3) and educational programs (4), but few examples exist of this type of interdisciplinary, cross-sector outreach effort that highlights cutting-edge research. The UW–DW IPSE collaboration has resulted in an innovative program using the strengths of each partner to bring cutting-edge science to the public. In the process, the UW IPSE interns received technical training and engaged in an iterative project development process as they gained experience in communicating science; the public developed a better understanding of and appreciation for nanoscale science, technology, and engineering. The Partnership The different cultures and pedagogical philosophies of universities and science centers provide a rich environment for sharing expertise when joined in a partnership like UW IPSE, whose two collaborators each contributed knowledge and experience unique to their institutional backgrounds. For example, with regard to teaching and learning, universities † Current address: Madison Area Technical College, Truax Campus, Madison, WI 53704-2599.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

focus on content-rich lectures and skill acquisition, whereas science centers emphasize the “wow” factor to inspire and motivate visitors to learn more on their own. Table 1 lists further strengths and resources of each partner in a pointby-point comparison, emphasizing the complementary nature of this collaboration. UW MRSEC conducts research in the formation, characterization, and exploitation of materials at the nanoscale. Understanding topics of substantial technological importance and communicating this understanding to the public are the Center’s fundamental goals. Devoted to the latter objective, the Interdisciplinary Education Group within UW MRSEC has developed a broad range of educational materials about advanced materials science and nanotechnology. These materials provided the foundation for the technical training of UW IPSE students. Table 1. Strengths and Resources of Partners in a University–Science Center Collaboration Universitya

Science Centerb

MFormal, structured, M“linear” learning, Massessment

MInformal, “non-linear” learning, M“Wow” factor

MDeep knowledge of Mscience content

MBroad knowledge of science Mcontent

MKnowledge of current Mresearch advances

MKnowledge of communicating Mscience to the public

MDevelopment of Mexperiment and Mdemonstration content

MDevelopment of presentation Mand exhibit packaging

MAccess to research and Mlibrary facilities

MAccess to science center facilities

MConnections to other Macademic institutions

MConnections to business leaders, Mcommunity leaders, museum Mnetworks, K–12 school system

MExperience with public Mgranting agencies (e.g., MNSF)

MExperience with marketing and Mgraphics design

MAccess to interns, Mfaculty experts

MAccess to K–12 teachers, youth Mand community groups

a University of Wisconsin–Madison Materials Research Science and Engineering Center; bDiscovery World.

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•

Journal of Chemical Education

743


While UW MRSEC offered the interns technical training and educational materials, DW helped them improve their understanding of the informal science education process and gain access to the public, including students and teachers. Approximately 150,000 children and adults, more than 40% of whom are school children and teachers, visit this Milwaukee attraction each year. While at the science center, patrons can participate in various labs and activities, tour the exhibit floors, and see live theatrical science shows. Through its regular interaction with teachers and school districts, DW has developed a network of teacher contacts. This proved to be an important resource for UW IPSE activity development and outreach efforts. The Milwaukee science center also contributed resources (including experts in graphic design and public science education) to the internship program. In keeping with the collaborative nature of the partnership, personnel from DW and UW MRSEC comprised a lead team that met on a regular basis to oversee the UW IPSE program. The Program UW IPSE focused on enhancing the technical background, science communication skills, teamwork skills, and leadership skills of its graduate and undergraduate interns, while simultaneously educating the general public and student populations about nanoscale science and technology through hands-on, interactive activities. To achieve this, it was important to have motivated interns who cared about science education and communication.

Program Structure Each intern was hired for an academic year and expected to commit an average of 10 hours per week to the program. Graduate students received a financial amount equivalent to a 25% project assistantship appointment, and undergraduate students were paid by the hour. At the beginning of the first semester, interns were divided into teams that were devoted to creating activities and materials to help the public learn more about various aspects of nanotechnology. The first half of the year focused on “research and development,” where interns learned background information, received technical and communication training, and developed activities and demonstrations. The second semester was dedicated to implementation and assessment of the materials developed. Throughout the activity development process, the iterative process of editing, assessing, and refining was stressed. During the first semester, UW IPSE interns attended professional development days (PDDs), where they expanded their communication skills and knowledge of nanotechnology and advanced materials. These training sessions were led by UW MRSEC faculty, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students, and DW staff and educators. Examples of PDD activities include learning about classroom and audience management; practicing presentation and communication skills; performing nanoscale experiments from the Center’s Webbased laboratory manual (see Figure 1) (5); learning how to give UW MRSEC demonstrations; and receiving feedback on intern-developed activities from other interns, educators, museum staff, and Center personnel.

The Interview Graduate and undergraduate interns were recruited from a variety of disciplines at colleges in the Madison and Milwaukee areas. Interviews occurred at the beginning of the spring semester in the first year of the program and at the beginning of the academic year in subsequent years. Approximately 50% of the applicants were accepted into the program in the first two years. Table 2 indicates the number of applications received, the number of interviews given, the number of interviewees hired, and the demographic information about the applicants and interns. See the Supplemental MaterialW for example interview questions. Table 2. UW IPSE Program Applicant Statistics %Data Categories

First Year

MSecond Year

%Applications Received

30%

27%

%Interviews Given

26%

19%

%Applicants Accepted

16%

12%

%Female Applicants (%)

67%

70%

%Female Interns (%)

69%

75%

%Non-UW Interns (%)

13%

%0%

%Graduate Student Interns

10%

5

744


•

Figure 1. Intern synthesizing ferrofluid during a professional development day at UW–Madison. (Photograph taken by Amy C. Payne.)

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Revised Program Structure

The Group Project

Based on the feedback of interns and observations made by the UW IPSE staff, the program was modified after the first year. Changes included increasing the amount of training in activity and demonstration development, defining the program’s goals and structure more clearly, including more interaction with children and students, and improving communication between staff and interns. To address these issues, the UW IPSE staff revised a mission statement for the program and created syllabi that detailed the expectations, goals, and events for the fall and spring semesters (see the Supplemental MaterialW). The new program structure also added a “What is nano?” group project (Figure 2). Additional changes to the program structure included smaller teams consisting of pairs of students, an assigned mentor for each team, and an increased focus on professional development. For the fall semester, the number of PDDs was doubled to alternating weeks. During the second semester of year two, PDDs and biweekly meetings were replaced with weekly, one-hour long meetings where staff and interns communicated about their outreach experiences or upcoming events. Interns were also given a leadership task—a major event (e.g., an educator workshop) that they were responsible for organizing. Finally, each team was required to write an informative 1000-word article for a general audience related to their team activity topic.

During fall 2002, all interns participated in a UW IPSE group project. There were four goals for this portion of the program: to increase the interns’ comfort level with working in a collaborative environment; to facilitate learning about nanotechnology; to help the interns learn how to engage a variety of audiences about nanotechnology; and to help the interns learn about developing interactive activities. The theme for the group project was “What is nano?” Interns worked individually and as a group to develop a set of activities explaining the concept of the nanoscale. Each intern was randomly assigned a target audience and asked to create an activity that would help his or her target audience comprehend the nanoscale. The target audiences ranged from kindergarteners to grandparents, and different educational backgrounds and experiences were considered. For an example of a “What is nano?” activity, see Figure 2. At subsequent PDDs, interns engaged in an iterative process of development by discussing their ideas with other interns; lead team members offered comments. Once the interns expanded their ideas, wrote them down, and revised them according to small group peer review, they handed them over to another intern, who finished writing and revising the activity. The whole process was facilitated by group discussions about nanotechnology and appropriate knowledge levels for different audiences.

“What Is Nano?” Activity Example: How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes? One “nano” activity compares the diameter of a human hair to the diameter of a carbon nanotube. The activity helps a range of audiences develop an appreciation for the scale of the nanometer, specifically as it relates to a carbon nanotube. After discussing the definition of “nano” (and other metric prefixes) and measuring various objects in the room, participants construct a circle of rope 4 m in diameter. The educator explains that the diameter of the circle represents the diameter of a single human hair, ~40 µm, if it were magnified 100,000 times. Several cylindrical objects (e.g., a wrapping paper tube, pencil, birthday candle, toothpick, and pencil lead) are placed in the center of the rope circle, and the educator asks the participants to decide which object represents the relative size of a single carbon nanotube magnified 100,000 times. The educator explains that a nanotube is approximately 4 nm in diameter and a strand of human hair is approximately 40,000 nm, and then asks the participants

(Photograph taken by Amy C. Payne.)

to determine which object in the center of the rope circle represents the relative size of a carbon nanotube. (The answer is 0.4 mm, or the diameter of pencil lead.) Through the activity, students learn about the scale of nanotechnology while reviewing the metric system, ratios, and conversions. See ref 6 for more details.

Figure 2. Description of an activity, How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes?, which is one of several developed by IPSE to explore “What is nano?”. The photograph shows an intern leading the activity with K–12 teachers at Discovery World in Milwaukee, WI.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•


745


Team Activity Examples: Communicating Nanotechnology

Welcome to Nanoville! The Societal Implications teams created role-playing activities that encourage participants to explore the potential legal, ethical, political, and social implications of nanotechnology (7). One activity illustrates the connections among technology, society, and the law-making process when the participants explore the impact of nanotechnology on a fictitious city, Nanoville (8). Participants role-play as lawmakers for Nanoville who must decide whether to pass a bill that would affect the town’s primary industry—car manufacturing. The bill would require local automobile manufacturers to use clay nanoparticle composite parts to build new cars. The participants are divided into groups and assigned a social group identity, such as environmentalists, local industry and business leaders, health and safety workers, Nanoville residents, or nanocomposite manufacturers. Adhering to the interests of its assigned identity, each group discusses and presents its views on the potential impact of the proposed law to the class. To conclude the activity, the participants vote on the bill and discuss the effect that decision will have on the residents of Nanoville.

Forms of Carbon The Forms of Carbon team designed a series of activities to introduce two allotropes of carbon, fullerenes and nanotubes, and to compare them to well-known allotropes—graphite and diamond (9). These allotropes represent different dimensional forms of carbon and allow connections between structure and properties to be introduced to the audience along with important nanotechnology materials. Flat graphene sheets, composed of carbon atoms in a hexagonal pattern, can be related to the carbon nanotube and the soccer-ball-shaped fullerene structure. In their activities, students can, for example, build a model of a fullerene or simulate testing the lubrication and tensile strength properties of each of the forms of carbon. The team also developed an item for the students to take home with them—a pencil with the structure of a carbon nanotube printed around its circumference. After learning to classify carbon nanotubes according to their structure (zig-zag, armchair, or chiral) and related properties (conductive, semi-conductive, or insulating), participants identify the type of carbon nanotube printed on their pencil. See below for examples of the pencils.

(A) By examining the pattern of hexagons around the circumference of a nanotube structure modeled by the patterned pencil, two (of the three) classes of nanotube structures can be distinguished. (B) Actual pencils modeling armchair (top) and zig-zag (bottom) carbon nanotube structures.

Figure 3. Description of two of the team activities.

746


•

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


The Team Activity One of the interns’ primary goals was to work with their team to create a 45-minute, interactive activity appropriate for a middle-school audience. Each activity addressed a topic related to nanotechnology, ranging from the societal implications of nanotechnology to the structure and properties of carbon nanotubes (Figure 2). At the beginning of the year, the interns were paired based on their educational backgrounds and topic preferences. Undergraduates were paired with graduate students, and students with less technical backgrounds were paired with students with more technical backgrounds (Table 3). The interns gained valuable experience and training by working in these interdisciplinary teams. After drafting the first version of their activities using a standardized format, the teams led their activities with several different audiences, including teachers and peers, to get feedback and make revisions before taking them into the classroom, museum, or community center. In the second semester of the program, each team was asked to lead its activity on at least six different days, evaluate its effectiveness, and make appropriate modifications after each presentation. See Figure 3 for examples.

Table 3. Relationship between Activity Content and Disciplinary Expertise of Participating Interns Team Activity

Corresponding Intern Disciplines

Exploring the Nanoworld

Food science, microbiology, biomolecular chemistry, zoology

Ferrofluid

Secondary education, food science

Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR)

Physics, electrical engineering, computer engineering, biomechanical engineering

Nanolithography

Journalism, secondary education, mechanical engineering

Nanotechnology Badge for Youth Organizations (e.g., Girl Scouts)

Industrial engineering, Spanish, genetics

New Forms of Carbon

Nuclear engineering, chemistry, genetics, industrial engineering

Societal Implications of Nanotechnology

History of science, computer science, psychology, math, chemical engineering, food science

Assessment The formal evaluation of the UW IPSE program comprises two key components: assessment of the interns’ experiences and assessment of the educators’ and youth organization leaders’ experiences with the interns and their activities.

Interns The goals for intern assessment included gathering feedback about the interns’ expectations of the program, the structure and administration of the program, and the impact of the program. Several methods were used, including attitudinal pre- and post-surveys, monthly online progress surveys, and videotaped performance assessments. All survey instruments and protocols were developed in consultation with the UW Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination (LEAD) Center and approved by the UW Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. Interns completed attitudinal surveys at the beginning (pre-survey), mid-point (not reported here), and end (postsurvey) of the second year. Although both the first and second year of the UW ISPE program are discussed above, only the second year has both pre- and post-surveys, and thus only the second-year results will be presented here. In addition, 12 responses were obtained for the pre-survey data compared to nine responses for the post-survey because three interns left during the year. Only the responses of those interns that completed the program are included in the following analysis. Although responses to the surveys were anonymous, each intern recorded the same self-selected identifying code on his or her surveys, making it easy to identify and remove the pre-surveys of those interns who did not complete the program. As an aside, each intern who left the program early completed an exit interview with UW IPSE staff. These interviews revealed that reasons for leaving the program fell into two categories: time management issues (overextended) and www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

travel issues. (The one-hour commute between Madison and Milwaukee was described as too time-consuming.) The pre- and post-surveys aimed to quantify changes in the interns’ perceived knowledge of science and technology, their comfort with teaching others about science and technology, and their communication skills as a result of participating in the UW IPSE program. Interns were asked to rate themselves on these and other topics prior to their UW IPSE experience (pre-survey rating). At the end of their internship, the interns were asked to rate themselves on the same topics before (post-survey “before” rating) and after (post-survey “after” rating) participating in the program. Data from the pre- and post-surveys indicate that the interns felt they increased their knowledge in all topic areas surveyed (Table 4), which included general science and technology, advanced materials, nanotechnology, their team activity topic, the mission and methodology of science museums, and public science education. The topic area with the greatest improvement was their team activity topic. This increase is likely due to the interns’ intense focus on their team topic throughout the year, which included writing an article that would be appropriate for a popular science magazine and repeatedly leading their team activity with K–12 students, educators, and the public. The area with the least improvement in knowledge level was general science and technology. The relatively small increase likely results from interns’ initial assessment that they began the program with a high level of knowledge about general science and technology, evident in the interns’ 4.11 average rating in the pre-survey (Table 4). It is important to note that these are perceived gains in knowledge levels and not actual gains. The interns completed attitudinal surveys about how much they believed they increased their understanding of these various topics; they did not take pre- and post-tests that would have assessed whether

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•


747


they had actually increased their knowledge levels. While this approach may provide an incomplete summary of the program’s effect on participants’ learning, a traditional preand post-test would have been difficult to administer given that each team of interns investigated such different topics. However, the attitudinal surveys still prove valuable because they provide an impression of the interns’ gains in these areas. Comfort level with teaching others about a subject is one indicator of change in the interns’ communication skills. It was believed that the more comfortable interns felt teaching a topic, the more effectively they could communicate important scientific concepts. Data from the pre- and post-surveys indicate that the interns increased their comfort level with teaching others about select topics, including general science and technology, advanced materials, nanotechnology, and their team activity topic (Table 5). Interestingly, at the end of year, the interns still felt more comfortable speaking about general science and technology (4.44) than advanced materials (4.00), nanotechnology (4.22), and their team topic (4.00), even though the program emphasis was on the latter topics. The overall improvement in “comfort level in teaching others about general science and technology” was smaller than the other topics areas surveyed because the interns had a reasonably high comfort level in this area prior to participating in UW IPSE. Nevertheless, an improvement in this area may indicate that the skills learned while communicating with others about advanced materials and nanotechnology are transferable to the more general topics of science and technology. It is interesting to note that the average post-survey “before” ratings (except “knowledge of advanced materials”) are lower than the corresponding pre-survey ratings collected at

Table 4. Interns’ Pre- and Post-Survey Responses Regarding Topical Knowledge Topic Area

Pre-Survey Rating

Post-Survey “Before” Rating

Post-Survey “After” Rating

General science and technology

4.11

3.89

4.44

Advanced materials

2.44

Nanotechnology

2.44

Team project topic area

2.25

1.89

Mission and methodology of science museums

2.33

1.67

Public science education

2.56

2.56

3.56

Table 5. Interns’ Pre- and Post-Survey Responses Regarding Teaching Others Topic Area

2.33

Pre-Survey Rating

Post-Survey “Before” Rating

Post-Survey “After” Rating

4.11

3.44

4.44

4.22

NGeneral Nscience and Ntechnology

3.56

NAdvanced Nmaterials

2.89

2.33

4.00

NNanoNtechnology

2.89

2.56

4.22

NTeam project Ntopic area

2.88

2.11

4.00

4.11

2.22

3.67

NOTE: The survey question asked participants to “rate your knowledge of the following topics” using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = “none” and 5 = “very knowledgeable”. The reported values reflect an averaged response; n = 9.

748

the beginning of the year (Tables 4 and 5). That the average pre-survey and post-survey “before” ratings are different is not surprising. It is doubtful that the interns would remember their pre-survey response after 10 months had passed, and they may have held inflated beliefs about their knowledge and comfort levels at the beginning of the year. A review of the change in individual pre-survey and post-survey “before” ratings revealed that almost all interns rated themselves the same or lower in the post-survey “before.” Some interns may have rated their prior knowledge more severely at the end of the program, having realized how little they knew at the beginning of the program relative to how much they learned during their internship. These inconsistencies raise the question as to which data sets are appropriate for comparison. Consultation with the LEAD Center made it clear that given that the interns provided the post-survey “after” rating with respect to the post-survey “before” rating, it is most appropriate to compare these two ratings. The interns also reported gains in skills related to public science education, including developing age-appropriate materials, creating a demonstration, communicating science topics to non-technical audiences, working effectively in teams, and interacting with K–12 students (Table 6). Of these skills, the interns indicated that their greatest improvements were in the areas of communicating science topics to nontechnical audiences and interacting with K–12 students. This likely resulted from the fact that these two skills were emphasized throughout the year in all of the interns’ tasks, including giving museum presentations, writing a science article for a lay audience, participating in teacher in-service training sessions, and writing and leading activities for students. Two of the other skills—creating a demonstration and developing age-appropriate presentations—played a large role in the internship, but the interns also had other responsibilities, such as writing the article and organizing an event, and thus showed less improvement. In addition, the relatively small change for working in teams probably was due to the interns rating themselves highly (4.33) at the beginning the program.


•

NOTE: The survey question asked participants to “rate your comfort level with teaching others about the following topics” using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = “uncomfortable” and 5 = “very comfortable”. The reported values reflect an averaged response; n = 9.

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


When asked to rate the extent to which their UW IPSE experience was worthwhile on a scale of 1–5, with 1 = not at all worthwhile and 5 = very worthwhile, all but one intern rated their experiences worthwhile or very worthwhile, with an average rating for the second year of 4.67. In addition to the attitudinal surveys, the interns participated in formative assessments throughout the year for the purpose of monitoring their progress and gauging the need for adjustments to the program. Monthly Web-based surveys asked interns to report on their goals for the upcoming month, their satisfaction with their team experiences and UW IPSE staff interactions, and their perceived progress in the skills mentioned above. The interns responded that they were happy with their teams and that they were making progress in developing skills. The majority of the interns also felt that the staff provided appropriate guidance in helping them reach their goals. When interns responded with a concern, request, or recommendation, the UW IPSE staff addressed these issues through email and face-to-face meetings. Videotaped assessment of each team leading its activity occurred during the second semester of year two. Interns from each team were asked to videotape their team leading an activity. Pre-college educators, UW IPSE staff, and the interns viewed the videotapes and provided the team members with feedback regarding their communication style and the organization and content of their activity. Initially these critiques were free-form, but a rubric was later created to facilitate discussion in three categories: communication method, assessment “on-the-fly”, and audience engagement. The video assessment allowed the interns to watch themselves communicate science—a new opportunity for many of them—and to assess the positive and negative aspects of their activities and their communication styles.

Table 6. Interns’ Pre- and Post-Survey Responses Regarding Self-Described Skill Level Skill

Pre-Survey Rating

Post-Survey Rating

Overall Increase

MWorking Meffectively in Mteams

4.33

4.56

0.23

MCommunicating Mscience topics Mto non-technical Maudiences

3.00

4.56

1.56

MInteracting with MK–12 students

3.33

4.56

1.23

MCreating a Mdemonstration

3.55

4.22

0.67

MDeveloping Mage-appropriate Mpresentations

3.44

4.00

0.56

NOTE: The survey question asked participants to “rate your skill level in the following areas” using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = “very low skill level” and 5 = “very high skill level”. The reported values reflect an averaged response; n = 9.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Educators and Youth Organization Leaders Feedback was solicited from educators and youth organization leaders (e.g., Junior Girl Scout) who interacted with the interns. As recipients and users of intern-created activities, they provided feedback in the form of a written survey about the usefulness and appropriateness of the activities and the effectiveness of the interns’ communication skills. Information from educator surveys and follow-up interviews conducted by UW IPSE personnel revealed that having a knowledgeable, engaging presenter lead the activity was preferable to doing so themselves; hands-on time for students was an important part of any presentation; the presentations often provided the opportunity to perform a lab or activity not normally possible in the classroom; and the activities broadened their students’ educational experiences. The educators surveyed expressed both interest and willingness to promote the program at their respective educational institutions. This support is also evident in their evaluations of the interns when they visited their classrooms. When rating interns on a scale of 1–5, with 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied, the vast majority of educators gave the interns fives on the following topics: knowledge of presenter, activity’s engagement of students’ interest, educational value of activity, and activity’s success in attending to proposed Wisconsin model academic standards (10). All the educators believed that the UW IPSE activities were delivered at an age-appropriate level.

Pre-College Students Pre-college students provided the most enlightening feedback regarding the effectiveness of the interns and their activities through impromptu post-assessment by their teacher. This feedback was shared with the interns and used to improve their communication skills and the organization and content of their team activity. Rigorous assessment of the students was not pursued due to human subjects’ issues. Program Impact The UW IPSE program aims to foster a public appreciation for advanced and nanoscale materials and to inspire the imagination, interest, and enthusiasm of the public and future scientists and engineers. To this end, the program is at the cutting-edge of museum–university collaborations. It is the largest of the NSF IPSE programs in scope, involving 31 interns to date and numerous faculty and staff. The structure of the program emphasizes professional development in the area of science communication (which is often overlooked in both undergraduate and graduate science and engineering courses), and encourages interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaborations. Since its start, this program has touched thousands of people through publications and presentations that bring nanotechnology to their attention. Through its majority female intern population, UW IPSE has also promoted women in science. For the program’s first two years, 72% of its interns were female, which was representative of the applicant pool. The K–12 educators interacting with the internship program commented that it was nice to have women scientists and engineers visit their classrooms to talk about science and serve as role models.

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•


749


Following their UW IPSE experience, several former interns have continued in, or shifted their focus to, majors and career paths in science education or public understanding of science. Interns have gone on to work for NASA Television, to cover the health and science beat for a local newspaper, to apply to programs in nanotechnology offering research experiences for undergraduates, and to accept postdoctoral positions researching the societal implications of nanotechnology. Three interns have completed their teaching certificates, and several plan to use the materials that they and other interns developed in their classes. We will continue to follow past program participants to assess the longer-term impact of the program. Summary As a collaboration between UW MRSEC and DW, this innovative internship program has benefited both those who have been involved professionally and those who have participated in the UW IPSE-created activities. By introducing the economic and societal implications of nanotechnology through team role-playing activities and encouraging physical and mental interaction with activity materials, the interns have fostered creativity and critical thinking in the minds of K–12 students and the public and helped them to feel like part of the future growth of technology. UW IPSE strives to help student and public audiences realize that research at the forefront of science and engineering can be both exciting and accessible. The program has also significantly contributed to the professional development of DW management, floor staff, and volunteers; the UW IPSE interns; and the UW MRSEC faculty, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students. Through informal discussions, museum personnel have learned about nanotechnology and cutting-edge science, while UW MRSEC personnel have learned about science education in middle-school and museum settings. The interns have benefited from structured professional development activities and have gained the ability to translate complex scientific jargon and concepts into language accessible to the nonexpert. The UW IPSE program serves as a model for introducing leading research into public and pre-college educational settings through a university–museum partnership. Science center professionals have the expertise in science communication and the means to connect faculty and post-secondary students to the public, while university researchers have scientific expertise and research facilities to share. As a result, such collaborations can be rewarding endeavors that communicate cutting-edge science and technology to the general public and provide valuable professional development experiences for all involved. Through its efforts, UW IPSE has heightened public appreciation for nanotechnology and inspired the imagination, interest, and enthusiasm of children and adults alike. More information about this program can be found at http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/IPSE/educators/ index.html (accessed Feb 2005).

750


•

W

Supplemental Material

Internships in Public Science Education program materials are available in this issue of JCE Online. These include: descriptions of the lead team and the recruiting process; an example program application; interview questions; fall and spring syllabi from year two; pre- and post-participation survey instruments; and a full-length version of the “How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes?” activity. Acknowledgments We thank the people who have made the UW IPSE program possible, including past and present members of the program’s management team: Joel Hassenzahl, Thomas F. Kuech, and Cindy Widstrand from UW; and Paul Krajniak, and Mike Schallock from Discovery World. We acknowledge Diane Bowcock and Christine Pribbenow of the LEAD Center for offering advice regarding our program evaluations. We also want to thank the numerous graduate and undergraduate interns who have contributed to the program. We greatly appreciate the financial contributions made by the National Science Foundation through DMR-0120897 (UW IPSE) and DMR-0079983 (MRSEC). Literature Cited 1. Committee on Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology. Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003; available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10633.html with a PDF report brief at http://books.nap.edu/html/ molecular_frontier/reportbrief.pdf (both accessed Feb 2005). 2. Ucko, D. A.; Schreiner, R.; Shakhashiri, B. Z. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 1081–1086. 3. Silberman, R. G.; Trautman, C.; Merkel, S. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 51–53. 4. Paris, S. G.; Yambor, K. M.; Packard, B. W.-L. Elem. Sch. J. 1998, 98, 267–288. 5. UW MRSEC, Lab Manual for Nanoscale Science and Technology. http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/nanolab/index.html (accessed Feb 2005). 6. UW IPSE, How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes? http:// www.mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/IPSE/educators/nanotube.html (accessed Feb 2005). 7. UW IPSE, Educator Resources. http://www.mrsec.wisc.edu/ edetc/IPSE/educators/index.html (accessed Feb 2005). 8. UW IPSE, Welcome to Nanoville: Technology and Public Policy. http://www.mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/IPSE/educators/ socImp2.html (accessed Feb 2005). 9. UW IPSE, Nanoarchitecture: Forms of Carbon Activities. http://www.mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/IPSE/educators/carbon.html (accessed Feb 2005). 10. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Wisconsin Model Academic Standards. http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/standards/ (accessed Feb 2005).

Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Communicating Science to the Public through a ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents