MEMORANDUM

DATE:January 14, 2003

TO: / Local Educators Network Focus Group Members
FROM: / Fred Raab / Jill Andrews
SUBJECT: / Draft Report of LHO-LEN Workshop on 1/8/03
Refer to: / LIGO-030018-00-W

See attachment.

LIGO Hanford Observatory Local Educators’ Network Focus Group Workshop

January 8, 2003

Outcomes

PART IOVERVIEW

Introduction. We organized a one-day educational outreach planning workshop jointly facilitated by Fred Raab, Head, LIGO Hanford Observatory and Jill Andrews, Caltech’s Assistant to the Provost for Educational Outreach. We asked thirteen representatives[1] from a variety of sectors in the community to join LHO’s “Local Educators Network” focus group because of their professional expertise and extensive knowledge of the community’s educational needs. Ten of the thirteen members participated in a one-day workshop, summarized in this document. Their contributions are (and will continue to be) crucial to a successful outcome.

Workshop Goals. Over the course of the next several years, LHO scientists plan to work with community leaders in order to understand and help meet science education needs. This first workshop is the beginning of a long-term partnership. We asked participants to become permanent members of the Local Educators’ Network focus group by making a commitment to meet and/or communicate electronically two to three times per year. Our immediate goal is to seek help and input as we construct a proposal to the National Science Foundation[2] to solicit funds to support the creation of a national-caliber visitors’ center at the LIGO Livingston, Louisiana Observatory (LLO), and to coordinate and enhance the existing outreach programs at LHO.

What did we do during the workshop? The day’s agenda is attached. In addition, we provided each participant with these accompanying materials:

  1. “Nominal Group Technique (NGT)” describes the method we used to gain consensus during the morning and afternoon sessions;
  2. “LEN Model” (A Model for Engaging Community Educators and Students: The Caltech Local Educators’ Network Focus Group) is a description of a focus group Caltech convened this last academic year. This model was provided to “jump start” our own discussions.
  3. “PreWorkshop Activity” is an important document that served as a guide for participants to reflect on the issues most relevant to our workshop discussions.
  4. “LHO Luncheon Discussion Notes” is a summary of our “warm-up” preceding the second half of the workshop. This warm-up gave participants the chance to begin thinking about issues and needs in their own community, and about possible solutions.
  5. “Outcomes” (this document) is a report on the rated responses by the group to a key, four-part trigger question. They provided advice on: (I) The most important educational needs in schools and the local communities; (II) How schools and the communities can use LHO as a resource; (III) Potential Barriers; (IV) Potential Benefits.
  6. “LHO LEN Focus Group Responses” documents individual responses to the 4-part question.

PART II. LHO LEN OUTCOMES

  1. The most important education-related needs in schools and the local communities. The group came up with 22 issues of concern (needs) and ranked them in order of importance[3]. They used a scale of 1-5, with 1 representing least important and 5 representing most important. Individual scores were combined to produce an aggregate score for each item. The list below shows the issues and rank assigned. The far right column indicates the number of times the idea was “hitch-hiked” (repeated). They appear in order of importance:

Item / Score (1-5) /

What are the needs in the schools and community?

/

Hitch-Hiked # of times

1 / 4.81 / Raise science awareness in the community with family emphasis on science education (science literacy). / 2
2 / 4.54 / Student motivation.
3 / 4.45 / Communicate nature of science (I.e., "Process") instead of "body of knowledge" / static information approach.
4 / 4.27 / Immerse science teachers in science community.
5 / 4.27 / Greater expectations of/by students.
6 / 4.27 / Science as lifelong learning. / 1
7 / 4.18 / Educate the Media about science and the importance of accurate reporting. / 1
8 / 4.18 / Professional development in inquiry-based science (content and confidence). / 3
9 / 4.09 / Cooperative partnership -- LIGO as springboard for interdisciplinary cooperation (I.e., art / science).
10 / 4.00 / Overcoming cultural barriers (Native Americans)
11 / 4.00 / Inclusion / diversity (ethnicity / challenged groups) / 1
12 / 4.00 / Increase awareness of real-world applications of science -- including economics and social issues. / 3
13 / 3.90 / Value integration of other subjects with science.
14 / 3.90 / LIGO as magnet for starting a 4-year college or university in the community.
15 / 3.81 / Scientific content integrated into inquiry.
16 / 3.63 / Promote basic literacy.
17 / 3.63 / Educate the public about the need to fund science. / 1
18 / 3.54 / Diversify the message of Hanford (resulting in positive community change).
19 / 3.54 / Parents should understand inquiry-based learning.
20 / 3.45 / Science / Engineers as important contributors in the community.
21 / 3.45 / Demystifying science as "too hard".
22 / 2.72 / Attitude of community toward learning (I.e., grade inflation)
  1. The most important ways in which schools and local communities can use LHO as a resource. The group listed 18 activities or programs they believe would be important contributions to augmenting or supporting science education in the community. Again, they used a scale of 1-5, with 1 representing least important and 5 representing most important. Individual scores were combined to produce an aggregate score for each item. The list below shows their ideas and rank assigned. The far right column indicates the number of times the idea was “hitch-hiked” (repeated). They appear in order of importance:

Item

/

Score

(1-5)

/ LHO Contribution / Solution / Hitch-Hiked # of times
1 / 5.00 / Destination for school / family / group field trips with ties to classroom instruction. / 3
2 / 4.90 / Bring students into contact with science through scientists. / 2
3 / 4.81 / Provide internships / experiences for elementary, secondary teachers and students; for pre- and in-service teachers; for professors / researchers and their undergraduate and graduate students. / 1
4 / 4.54 / Provide programs to open eyes of students to possibilities.
5 / 4.54 / Consulting to / mentoring teachers on science content.
6 / 4.45 / Consulting / collaboration with student science projects.
7 / 4.18 / Sharing equipment / exhibits / posters / materials.
8 / 4.09 / Intellectual prestige in community (related to Item #8) / 1
9 / 4.09 / Sharing research data, using technology links to schools. / 1
10 / 4.00 / Improve curriculum.
11 / 4.00 / LIGO as source of program speakers.
12 / 3.81 / LIGO as model of interdisciplinary nature of scientific research.
13 / 3.72 / Resource for business / economic development.
14 / 3.63 / Informational outreach (Public Relations).
15 / 3.60 / Scientists as liaisons to help interpret / understand state science education standards.
16 / 3.18 / Raise local awareness of students doing research.
17 / 3.18 / LIGO as an integrated community.
18 / 3.00 / Provide model for expectations.
  1. Potential Barriers. The group was asked to identify possible barriers to implementing these ideas. Responses are listed below. They are not ranked.

Item

/ What are the potential barriers? (Not scored) / Hitch-Hiked # of Times
1 / Lack of Funding / 1
2 / Isolation / geography / 2
3 / Lack of Community desire for education.
4 / Lack of Enough "gee whiz" stuff, appropriate to attracting K-8 students
5 / Teacher scheduling / Time limits / 3
6 / Transportation. / 2
7 / Lack of teacher confidence / lack of understanding
8 / Distance issues
9 / Insufficient population base to support science center
10 / Lack of teacher motivation / commitment to science. / 1
11 / Lack of teacher and mentor energy
12 / Scientists don't easily translate science for kids --> adults
13 / Lack of trust
14 / Lack of adequate preparation before visits.
15 / Potential to overshadow existing local facilities / efforts.
16 / Lack of scientists' time
17 / Lack of student interest in involvement
18 / Lack of staff to coordinate programs.
  1. Potential Benefits. Finally, the group listed the following offsets to potential barriers:

Item

/ What are the potential benefits? (Not scored) / Hitch-hiked # of times
1 / Maximize community resources
2 / Potential for additional classroom materials.
3 / More tech-competent community makes better decisions. / 2
4 / Real live facility as destination / 2
5 / Better science instruction
6 / This is a COOL thing! (Enjoyment; access to world class scientists) / 2
7 / Increases teacher confidence in teaching science.
8 / Expand education and scientific institutional base / 1
9 / Broad field educational opportunities
10 / Improved student outcomes / motivation / 1
11 / Attract and create new business opportunities
12 / Partners with frontier science.
13 / Better education through striving.
14 / Encourage lifelong learning.
15 / Improve understanding of fundamental science / the Universe / and our place in it.
16 / Classroom applications of data. / 1
17 / Improved science culture in the school.
18 / Get to know scientists as "real people".
19 / Reaching a diverse population.

LEN FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES

LIGO HANFORD OBSERVATORY WORKSHOP

JANUARY 8, 2003

Fred Raab and the ten members of the Local Educators Network in attendance responded to the following trigger question, which has four parts, each called a “Category.” These are the raw, unranked responses for each category. Their answers correlate to the “Outcomes” lists in Excel format, separately documented. Categories I and II under “Outcomes” appear in ranked order. Categories III and IV in the “Outcomes” document are not ranked.

TRIGGER QUESTION: Within the context of information presented by Fred Raab on LIGO, please respond to the following:

Category I: What are the three most important educational needs in your school and/or community?

Responder 1

  • Educate the public in need to fund scientific projects
  • Demystify science as “too hard”
  • Awareness of real world applications of science

Responder 2

  • Funding: insufficient funds for field trips, materials, and new curricula.
  • Attitude (on part of school administrators): community does not understand the magnitude of what must be done to be proficient in science; i.e., grade inflation – science must not be “too hard.”
  • Overcome cultural barriers: student and parents need to be made aware of the potential their children have as scientists. There is a lack of vision and goal setting into the future. Students need to be mentored to help them get through culture shock.

Responder 3

  • Strengthen teachers of science; motivate lifelong learning (inclusion / diversity)

Responder 4

  • Raise awareness of scientific and engineering knowledge in community – target families.
  • Provide (or facilitate) access to science and engineering impacts on daily life.
  • Media needs to be made smarter about “real” science and engineering – local breakthroughs, worldwide impacts.

Responder 5

  • To take advantage of LIGO my community needs to motivate families to value science education and realize the need to be “scientifically literate.”
  • We need to recognize the value of science in daily life, as well as its economical and social value.
  • We need to understand that “science” is life and lifelong learning will have science as an integral part.

Responder 6

  • Professional development in inquiry science
  • Scientific literacy (What is LIGO?)
  • Integration of other subjects with science (math, writing, reading, history)
  • Parents learn about inquiry learning

Responder 7

  • Student motivation
  • Improved teacher instruction or preparedness
  • Help students and their parents understand the nature of science and how science is applied in the real world.

Responder 8

  • To communicate to pre-service teachers what the nature of science is, how it is accomplished. More than a body of knowledge.
  • To increase the pre-service teachers’ confidence that they can teach science – increase their understanding of content and process.
  • To allow pre-service teachers to really feel the thrill of solving problems, thinking critically, doing inquiry.

Responder 9

  • Informing community about what LIGO is doing and what the research is trying to accomplish.
  • Inform community of the benefits to society in regard to the accomplishments in scientific knowledge that may be attained.
  • Providing a site where community members are conducting real-to-life scientific work – illustrating scientists and engineers as important contributors to the community.

Responder 10

  • Extra-school hands-on science experience
  • 4-year college
  • Cooperation / partnership of LIGO, PNNL, ACE etc. / science based history based institutions
  • Diversify Hanford use / resources.

Responder 11

  • Lead students to expect high academic success for themselves.
  • Need to improve the relevance of classroom science education for all students [women, the broad middle, low achievers, special needs, underserved].
  • Need to integrate science content for all students into interesting science experiences that are of a multidisciplinary nature [integrate science content into holistic inquiry-based activities].

Category II: How can your school and/or community use the proposed LIGO as a resource?

Responder 1

  • Source of speakers for programs
  • Share science equipment / reduce costs
  • Share research data using technology links to the classrooms

Responder 2

  • Learning resource – materials and funding for field trips. I do not know what LIGO will be willing to do for my programs.
  • Help show what is expected to do real science.
  • Provide programs that will open the eyes of students to the potential future awaiting them.

Responder 3

  • Visit for informal programs
  • Teacher training / resource center
  • Bring kids into contact with science / scientists
  • Formal education use of exhibits / demos / resources
  • Business recruitment / development

Responder 4

  • LIGO has lots of excitement about it: a model for how, from bottom up, a rather wide range of skills (people) are needed to operate the LIGO facility – should be presented in that way.

Responder 5

  • With some background and interest, LIGO will be a great place for field trips in school and a destination for various other groups to visit and learn. If LIGO is successful in detecting Gravity waves, who knows what the future will bring!

Responder 6

  • Informational outreach
  • See how data is used
  • Science in action!
  • Relevance  worldwide project

Responder 7

  • Provide professional development for science teachers on what LIGO is doing and how they are doing it.Opportunity to visit LHO – or presentation in town.
  • Scientific observations and interpretations from scientists on how to best interpret WASL standards (as they are modified, etc.).
  • Field trip experience that ties to classroom instruction.

Responder 8

  • Provide an experience for pre-service teachers that would change their mindset about science – they would therefore teach science to their students differently.
  • Provide introduction / begin collaborations and mentoring for pre-service teachers to use to teach content.
  • An accessible center to take their students – field trips are hard for first-year teachers to organize / set up – HELP from LIGO would be wonderful!

Responder 9

  • Tours and speakers.
  • Internships in research (students and teachers).
  • Illustrates interdisciplinary nature of science.

Responder 10

  • Student and teacher mentors.
  • Advocate for science education.
  • Educational prestige of MIT/Caltech to draw interest to our region.

Responder 11

  • LIGO personnel can interact (consult) with individual students over student science projects to provide encouragement and technical help.
  • LIGO can lend its prestige / excitement to helping us make student work more visible in the school / community [various interface activities].
  • LIGO can help raise local visibility of student research project.
  • LIGO can help improve the quality of our physical science curriculum.

Category III: What are three potential barriers?

Responder 1

  • Time conflicts with scientists / program
  • Funding
  • Scientists don’t always “speak” kids’ language
  • Enough staff
  • “WalMart” syndrome (bigger, better programs overshadow smaller ones)

Responder 2

  • Lack of funds
  • Isolation of district / distance and time
  • Lack of trust (district, community)

Responder 3

  • Distance
  • “Bus money”
  • Teachers’ time

Responder 4

  • Access to isolated facility
  • Community needs to want to be educated
  • Funding (lack of)

Responder 5

  • Enough whiz/bang for K-8 students
  • Background to appreciate what’s happening.

Responder 6

  • Transportation
  • Time

Responder 7

  • Attracting teachers.
  • Bus funding – schedule conflicts.
  • Shortage of substitutes.

Responder 8

  • Time – their experience should be longer than one day, but that would be better than nothing.
  • Their commitment to science (or different disciplines) – K-5 teachers do not have it as a priority (6-12 teachers do, but are often only concerned with their own discipline).
  • Confidence and content knowledge (don’t even know where to start!)

Responder 9

  • Distance from the city (geography)
  • Time for teachers to build into their classroom activities
  • Teacher motivation.

Responder 10

  • Lack of traditional partnerships (arts council as example)
  • Distance – spread of facilities – need central organization / center.

Responder 11

  • Teacher and mentor energy
  • State $$
  • Attracting student involvement, especially with nontraditional student groups.

Category IV: What are three potential benefits?

Responder 1

  • Maximize resources
  • World-class scientists and visitors available
  • Unique setting for learning

Responder 2

  • Show how real science is done!
  • Maybe we could get a field trip out of the deal.
  • Potential for additional materials to be used in the classroom.

Responder 3

  • Access to science as enjoyment
  • Understanding / appreciation of “real” science
  • “Better education through striving”

Responder 4

  • A more technically competent community makes better decisions for everyone.
  • Availability of resources can be used to facilitate education.
  • A diverse set of new scientists and engineers spawns greater scope of creativity.

Responder 5

  • Real live research facility / scientists
  • Cutting edge of scientific research.
  • Web research in classroom: data collection and analysis

Responder 6

  • Increased scientific literacy
  • Human endeavors to solve problems and understand the universe
  • Technology, math, science being used and limits thereof at the present time (understanding that we don’t know what we don’t know).

Responder 7

  • Community cohesiveness.
  • Generating interest in science throughout the community.
  • Better science instruction.

Responder 8

  • Wonderful first-hand experiences with research scientists and community of science.
  • Increase pre-service teachers’ confidence to have mentors also their content knowledge.
  • Possible motivation for students.
  • Lifelong learners – informal science is a way to instill this in teachers and students.

Responder 9