Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:12:51.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond “Train-the-Trainer:” A Preliminary Report on a New Scaffolding Strategy for Science Communication Workshop Dissemination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2013

Carol Lynn Alpert
Carol Lynn Alpert*
Affiliation:
Museum of Science, Boston, MA 02114, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

This paper reports on the development and results to date of a new strategy to disseminate a well-validated, successful science communication workshop program to multiple campuses hosting National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Experience for Undergraduates or REU-like research programs. The REU Science Communication Workshop program (REU SCW) is based on the premise that the most effective pedagogy for science communication skills development is one in which students practice iteratively using their own research material, with expert coaching and facilitated peer feedback. After testing several models for widespread dissemination, the most promising capacity-building strategy is one that scaffolds the traditional “train-the-trainer” approach with a new “piggyback” professional development model.

Keywords

educationdiffusionnanoscale
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1532: Symposium ZZ – Communicating Social Relevancy in Materials Science and Engineering Education , 2013 , mrsf12-1532-zz02-06
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alpert, C.L., “Broadening and Deepening the Impact: A Theoretical Framework for Partnerships between Science Museums and STEM Research Centres, ” Social Epistemology, 23:3, 267–281. 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpert, C.L., “Joining Forces for Public Engagement, ” Materials Today, 11:5, p.6, May 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpert, C.L., C.L., “Public Engagement with Nanoscale Science and Engineering, ” Nanotechnology: Societal Implications II, ed. by Roco, M., Bainbridge, W., National Science Foundation, Springer 2007.Google Scholar
Alpert, C.L., Isaacs, J., Barry, C., Miller, G., Busnaina, A., A., “Nano’s Big Bang: Transforming Engineering Education and Outreach, ” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conf. & Expo, June 2005.Google Scholar
Alpert, C.L., Levine, E., Barry, C., Isaacs, J., Fiorentino, A., Hollar, K., Thate, K., “Tackling Science Communication with REU Students: A Formative Evaluation of a Collaborative Approach, ” Materials Education, ed. by Marinho Patterson, M., Dunham, D., Marshall, E., Nucci, J. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 1234, 2009), pp.04–12.Google Scholar
Donahue Institute, “Research Experience for Undergraduates: Evaluation of the Summer 2010 Program, Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing” (unpublished) Google Scholar
Donahue Institute, “Research Experience for Undergraduates: Evaluation of the Summer 2010 Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison” (unpublished).Google Scholar
Communication with A. E. Greenberg; data collection and analysis not yet published.Google Scholar
Alpert, C.L., “Research Experience for Undergraduates Science Communication Workshop” Professional Development Guide, Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, 2011. Available in the nisenet.org online catalog under “Tools and Guides.” Google Scholar
Data from the 2012 iREU Directors Implementation Survey I and II.Google Scholar
Data from the 2012 iREU Directors Implementation Surveys I and II; from MOS Strategic Projects team records; and from Andrew Greenberg’s records.Google Scholar
Data from the 2012 iREU Directors Implementation Surveys I and II; and from email correspondence between iREU participants and the author; data from 2012 REU Student Session I Post Surveys collected from students at all participating REU program sites; and Session II Post Surveys collected from students at 8 of the 10 sites.Google Scholar