A.  Description of the summer program

Three teachers were invited to research in the SCIPP lab this summer, joining nine REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) students, a program that SCIPP has hosted for several years.  After meeting all of the researchers and being introduced to their studies, each teacher and student picked two projects to work on.  From there, the activities were individualized based on the needs of the mentors, research group, and research duties.  In addition to the research, there were some planned activities.  Every Wednesday a professor or graduate student gave a lecture on his/her area of interest followed by the teachers and REU students giving presentations on their research progress.  In the afternoon, the teachers and our teacher/outreach/research mentor, Hartmut Sadrozinski, had open discussions on k-12 outreach and the summer research experience (the results of these discussions recorded here!). During the course of the summer, we also had the opportunity to visit SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), Lick Observatory, and Intel Corporation.  Moreover, by popular demand, the Intel field trip was arranged after the summer program began. To end the summer, everyone was responsible for making a final presentation and writing a report summarizing his/her research.  It is also tradition that a web page is created for the REU program, so hopefully a teacher web page will be completed as well.
 

B.  Comments about the summer program '98

We, the teachers, feel that working in the SCIPP lab this summer was a rewarding and worthwhile experience.  We appreciated the fact that everyone in the lab was so overly generous with his/her time. We enjoyed the weekly lectures on current physics topics, but felt that most were only moderately understandable. Yesterday, someone made a comment about our last lecturer, Abe Seiden, that she enjoyed his talk because he appeared to consciously present his topic in a simple and straightforward manner.  It was suggested that lecturers could provide introductory readings (Scientific American level) on the lecture topics prior to the lecture to provide some background and an introduction to new terms and definitions.  We felt that the weekly presentations by student researchers were beneficial because it is interesting to know what others are studying as well as good practice in oral communication.  One teacher felt that the informality of the sessions allowed for discussion and feedback while another teacher felt that the presentations needed to be a little more serious because the effectiveness of the presentations were sometimes compromised in the banter.  However, the students did come up with a great Super Breakfast Theory about the waffle particle and its decay particles-- proof that they "worked" during non-working hours!  All of us think that the summer experience should remain a full-time, eight week program to provide enough time to be completely engrossed in our assigned projects.  We are disappointed that the summer is closing because there are a few things we would like to finish before embarking on our fall adventure of teaching.  It was suggested that one project, rather than two, would be sufficient, and an introduction to the project and people involved be provided before the summer begins so that teachers can familiarize themselves with the content and be ready to begin work right away when the summer program begins.  It was also suggested that participating teachers have a little stronger background in physics, but it wouldn't be mandatory because the SCIPP faculty and students are so accessible.  It also seems important that teachers are fairly computer literate because many projects are dependent upon them.  In addition, we often had to move around to different computers to analyze data and prepare for our presentations.  It would be helpful to have more computers available and for the programs to be consistent.  The writer of this paper has used four different computers to write, link, and print this report.  The partnership between the REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) students and teachers worked very well.  The role reversal of teacher-student was refreshing and a good learning experience for all involved.  We all emphasized the amount of teamwork required and feel this is an important concept to bring back to our classrooms.  Regarding the assignment to projects, it was voiced that it seems unnecessary for us to choose our project because of our lack of expertise of the specific physics topics.  One teacher commented that more guidance would have made her project a little more meaningful to her while another teacher said she appreciated the independence.  The "teacher stuff" such as these discussions on outreach, our educational transfer plans, and how our experience will be used in our "real profession" have been very interesting.  Sometimes we felt that these issues pulled us away from the lab for too long, but it is unanimous that we would like to be a part of creating a similar positive educational experience for others.  One teacher fully supports some type of teacher training for working in the lab and another teacher thinks that if we had similar teaching assignments (i.e. being high school physics teachers), it would have been worthwhile to discuss curriculum and ideas for the classroom as part of the summer program.
 
 

C.  Description of what we gained from the program

Deirdre is "truly excited about teaching an introductory unit in particle physics to [her] high school physics students."  She has stated that the most valuable connection for her to make with her students is the importance of not just learning the science, but doing the science. Deirdre is also making a presentation about her research at Columbia University at the end of the summer.  The conference is a NSF sponsored trip through IISME (Industry Initiatives in Science and Math Education).  In her presentation, she focuses on three lessons she learned in the lab that will help her as a classroom teacher: 1) the challenge and necessity of making knowledge accessible; 2) teamwork is a crucial element of research; and 3) there is a strong interdependence between basic research and technology.  As part of her IISME Educational Transfer Plan (a plan on how to connect our summer work to our classrooms), Mia brought some of her students that will be high school freshmen next year to the lab.  Even though her survey statistics show that only 3/4 of them really enjoyed the experience they all learned a great deal and have a new perspective about physics and research.  She thinks it says a lot that students were willing to use a day of their summer to explore the lab, whether their reactions were positive or not quite positive.  Mia feels that the field trip gives her a better understanding on how to make the next interaction between science/math professionals and her students more effective and it provided another connection between middle school/ high school / and university level science and research.
In the past, Mia has sent quite a few students off to college, but with the summer research experience, she knows that she can give a more personal assessment on why to pursue science and/or technology in college.

Nancee is working on generating a list of valuable curriculum activities that can be for in-class use, pre/post activities on physics units, or to prepare teachers or students in visiting facilities like SCIPP.  She has also been brainstorming on how she can help develop a more involved outreach program for teachers and students through SCIPP.
 

D.  Ideas for future outreach

Fall and Spring Ideas
 

Yale-New Haven model-
We think that the model sounds very attractive in principle.  To make it effective for UCSC, SCIPP, and participating teachers, we feel certain considerations need to be made.  Our biggest concern is the amount of time that is required.   Someone suggested a program that met once a week might be feasible.  Another person suggested a program that was jointly developed between UCSC and school district(s).  The district support is necessary to provide release time or incentives for teachers to participate in an intensive program.

Fall/spring workshop idea-
We have jointly discussed the idea of having two workshops for teachers. In the fall, any interested science teachers would be invited to a full or 1/2 day program where professors and graduate students would speak about their work and introduce their ideas for independent teacher research and teachers would get together to discuss the ideas and voice their needs for physics curriculum.  The focus of this first meeting is to promote the personal and professional rewards of experimental research and to put groups of teachers together with a professor to "talk" about physics and physics curriculum (develop lessons?) throughout the academic school year.

The spring workshop might be several days in length where professors and teachers talk about what they have done throughout the school year, activities they developed with their "talk" groups, and curriculum goals for the future.  This meeting would also serve as a platform for the summer research program.  Professors and graduate students would describe their work in more detail and recruit teachers so that teachers could begin to familiarize themselves with the research topic.

It was suggested that as an incentive to get teachers to come to the workshops, they should be paid and fed and it doesn't seem feasible to have the first workshop during school hours because of the shortage of substitute teachers.  The second workshop might be a selection process or a time to submit applications for the summer research positions.

Miscellaneous ideas-

The suggestions of inviting high school teachers to the university during the school year for the regular campus seminars was vetoed.  It was a nice offer, but we feel that few teachers would take advantage of it because of time constraints in their lives during the school year.

The suggestion of bringing professors, post-doctoral fellows, or graduate students into the classroom was also met with some hesitation.  With further discussion, it was decided that it might be effective if there was joint planning between the visitor and the teacher prior to the visit.  For example, lessons or activities planned and implemented prior to, or in conjunction with, the visit.

All of the teachers IISME Educational Transfer Plans have something to do with the SCIPP lab.  One teacher already brought students to the lab and the other two teachers are preparing activities and/or web site research that would be beneficial before and after a visit to the lab.  More visits to the lab were not discussed, but it was generally agreed that a visit to the lab might have a larger impact on students than just hearing about the lab.  In addition, if a summer program is developed for high school students, some sort of plan for visits would be helpful.

The idea that made all of the teachers excited was the suggestion of having a 1/2 year sabbatical for a high school teacher to work in the lab.  Some issues to think about would be the cost to support the teacher and the release time from his/her teaching duties.  School districts have different policies for leave of absences.  Is it possible to work out a partnership with a school so two teachers could share a position or something similar?
 
Next summer-

Our original idea of bringing high school students in with their teachers for summer research is still being actively discussed.  One possibility is to offer a science camp where students are housed at the University and their evening hours are monitored by camp leaders.  During the day, students and teachers would work together with a professor, post-doc, etc.  It was suggested that this summer camp experience should be between 3 to 6 weeks in length and a full day.  The students selected would be limited to those who will complete their senior year the next year but they would not necessarily need to be represented by a teacher from their school. Because of the complexity of the subject and the independence in the lab, students would have to be highly motivated and responsible.  Another suggestion was to have a teacher training followed by teachers teaching the students some basic concepts prior to working in the lab.  For example, mini-lessons to familiarize everyone with the tools and language of their projects.

Lastly, if anything, summer research should continue for teachers!!  All of us believe that the benefits of this program are numerous and our experience is just the tip of the iceberg.  Each of us gained something different-- Deirdre loved the whole concept of the research; Mia loved being the "student" while still producing results in her research; and Nancee loved the research related to astronomy and space studies--not to mention the stories and ideas we will bring to our classrooms.  Future programs offered by the university can only be stronger with continued support and evaluation.  We had a great summer and we would like to thank ATLAS outreach, SCIPP, UCSC, and IISME for their support!

return to teacher web site home page