Spring 2021 Newsletter

Letter From STEMAP Team

Dear STEM Ambassadors and Community Partners,

Spring brought two more cohorts for the STEM Ambassador Program, plus planning for several more! We implemented training online for twenty-one Ambassadors, and are providing support as they engage remotely.

STEMAP will be running two trainings this summer with scientists around the country. One cohort will be based at Oregon State University and Northern Kentucky University, with facilitators at each location supporting the Ambassadors. The other will be led in partnership with the Center for Synthetic Organic Electrochemistry, serving Ambassadors based at nine different institutions.

Our Spring 2021 training wrapped up in April, with Ambassadors carrying out creative remote engagement projects with a wide variety of communities. Read on to learn about their experiences!

Everyone at STEMAP is grateful for your continued support. We are excited about these upcoming opportunities to expand to new locations.

Thank you,

Nalini Nadkarni, Director
Caitlin Weber, Program Manager
Megan Young, Program Coordinator

Announcing the 2021 Summer Cohorts

STEMAP will be launching a Summer 2021 online cohort in collaboration with Northern Kentucky University and Oregon State University this June. STEMAP has will be collaborating with site facilitators at each university- Kristy Hopfensperger at NKU and Abby Metzger and Ryan Brown at OSU to provide to Ambassadors.

Site facilitators for both institutions are now processing applications and preparing for the semester. You can read more about this collaboration on the Oregon State University STEM Research Center website.

STEMAP is also pleased to be working with the Center for Synthetic Organic Electrochemistry to run an electrochemistry online cohort from June to August. Participants will be located at nine different universities across the country. This will serve as a Broader Impacts collaboration as part of the Centers for Chemical Innovation Program with the National Science Foundation.

STEM Community Alliance Program in the news

STEMAP’s partner program, the STEM Community Alliance Program (STEMCAP) was featured in the University of Utah’s newsletter, @TheU, and on Fox 13. Since 2017, STEMCAP has provided science workshops, art and science projects, and hands-on conservation activities at five youth-in-custody facilities in the Salt Lake area.

STEMCAP is often recruiting scientists to present.

E-mail Laura George, the STEMCAP Program Manager if you would like to get involved.

Ambassador Reflections

The following articles were written by STEM Ambassadors about their engagement experiences, which took place remotely due to COVID-19. In-person programs are postponed until further notice.

Emma Tkachuck

Having worked for an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for several years, stalwartly protecting human subjects in research with a mighty pen and brave computer, I was well aware of the importance of our work, but going through STEMAP gave me an entirely new perspective, one that took me out from behind my desk, and connected what I do with the real world, and allowed me to view it through fresh eyes. Viewing it through young community members, allowed me to connect with my work at the IRB as much as it did for them.

When preparing my engagement activity with youth in custody through the STEM Community Alliance Program (STEMCAP), I wondered what about the IRB and Research Ethics could possibly be interesting to incarcerated teenagers. Working in a regulatory field, we so often get caught up in the day to day requirements and checklists, and dotted I’s and crossed T’s of the process. When I stripped all of that away and thought about why we do this work, not just how, the answer was obvious not just for my interests, but what I knew would be interesting to incarcerated youth: justice and protection of participants. With expertise and insights from STEMCAP staff, I was able to focus on the topics that get the students raising their hands. It’s been couple of years (*cough* decades *cough*) since I was a youth, but as it turns out, what engages them isn’t so different from what engages me, so I set out to craft a presentation and activity that would stir their hearts and minds as it comes to ethics, justice, and fairness.

My presentation was developed through a multitude of drafts trying to pin point the most engrossing (or the least boring) examples, language, and images that students might connect with. One challenge was whittling the material down to an amount that wouldn’t be overwhelming. Particularly with designing the activity to present over Zoom, I knew that I wasn’t going to have the same amount of connection with the students as if I were in person.

I presented to three classes at the Decker Lake Youth Center during their existing science class. The students were given colored note cards to raise for asking questions. Shamelessly, I began with a photo of my three cats and a brief introduction about myself and my personal and professional background. If there’s one thing the internet has taught me, it’s that cats get results. I described human subjects research and the why IRBs were established, knowing that most people have never heard of an IRB, then moved into research ethics and the principles set forth in the Belmont Report. I was afraid the students’ eyes would glaze over and was ready for audible groans, but to my delight, the students already had a basic understanding of ethics and were excited to connect the principles for ethical research and their experiences. The students identified pertinent questions and important issues to consider for each principle, such as the dangerousness of the treatment and how many people the treatment is expected to help in relation to Beneficence. The principle of Justice brought forth questions about choice and estimated effectiveness. For the principle of Respect for Persons we highlighted Informed Consent and the students shared what they would want to know before agreeing to take part in research.

With the principles of the Belmont Report under their belts, ready to deploy on even the most ferocious of research quandaries, we invited the students to serve as IRB reviewers and assess a sample study. We planned for up to three studies, but only had time to dig into one of them, the study I called the “Hole in the Head Study.” This study involves a placebo and required students to weigh the individual risks and benefits with the potential societal benefits. The students raised their colored cards to indicate their vote to either approve, hold for questions, or disapprove the study. In explaining their votes, the students had insightful comments and questions and wanted to clarify if the risks were worth the benefits, and how the researchers knew there was a potential for benefit. They also wanted more detailed information about how the study would be carried out and how safety would be ensured, asking “What if the needles aren’t sterile?” and “What if they get worse?” The teachers were supportive and asked effective questions prompting the students think about issues to address. By the end of the class we had budding IRB board members on our hands.

The two biggest challenges were getting the students engaged in the presentation, and limited time. With limited time, it was hard to balance providing enough background information while also getting everyone active and engaged. In the future, it would be worth exploring some bite sized scenario questions throughout the presentation to get them thinking about ethical questions in research from the beginning. Overall, it was super exciting to share research ethics with the students and highlight a lesser-known aspect of science.

I would really like to thank the STEMCAP team and everyone at the Decker Lake Youth Center who helped facilitate the presentation and the discussion. The engagement by the students and teachers was thoughtful and ignited in me a renewed excitement about research ethics!

Alexandra Giese

I became disabled shortly before my 30^th birthday when I slipped hiking in the French Alps and, after a 40 m (130 ft) fall, landed on my head.  My skull shattered, and I survived a severe traumatic brain injury that necessitated a leave from my Ph.D. studies and, through extensive rehabilitation, relearning to swallow water, walk, and pronounce the name of my scientific discipline, glaciology.  Being able to do science today has become a symbol of beating the odds: waking up from my coma, eventually living independently without full-time care, and, after a medical leave, resuming my studies to graduate in June 2019 with a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences.  The very subject matter of my scientific interests—the shifts in Earth’s climate, melt of mountain glaciers, and fluctuations in water supply—have something in common with my adult life over the past five years: change.

I didn’t see this parallel until my initial Connect meeting with STEMAP staff Megan Young and Caitlin Weber, who listened to me give a dichotomous answer to their question “What do you like to do for fun?”  I told them about what I used to do (rock climb, ski, bike, backpack) and what I do now (cook, run, hike on moderate trails).  I shared that my personal identity has not caught up (and may never catch up) to this shift such that I don’t know how to answer the question without dividing it into “what I want to do in my free time” vs. “what I’m content doing within the limits posed by my neurological deficits, like poor balance.”  Through active listening, Caitlin reflected that change was the theme she heard as I talked about both my personal journey and scientific pursuits.

I had spoken with countless kids’ science classes while a graduate student, had written a variety of blog posts, and had even given some public talks and taken part in a video promoting women in science that was covered by Andy Revkin of the New York Times.  But I think STEMAP was the first time “outreach” was termed “engagement,” and it was definitely the first time a science communication endeavor started with personal reflection on why I wanted to engage and what connections I could make with a focal group.

After identifying that I wanted to work with a disabled population, I reached out to the National Ability Center in Park City, UT; it was there that I had done bike, kayak, and cross-country ski lessons after my accident. It seemed to me that an organization dedicated to adaptive recreation and fostering an “Adaptive Nation” community was not a traditional audience for scientists.  I wanted to interact with NAC participants and learn about their experiences with change and adaptation, the biggest themes in my research and personal life.

After expressing my desire to serve the NAC’s mission and needs rather than impose my own goals on the organization, offering to talk about any kind of Earth Science beyond my highly-specific discipline, and explaining that all engagement must be remote due to University COVID-19 restrictions, the NAC offered an opportunity to work with members of Park City Adult Lifelong Learning (PC ALL), an NAC partner.  I felt eager to share my commitment to an Adaptive Nation, develop my own knowledge of developmental disabilities, and learn about the value of science in the PC ALL community—all while helping to increase knowledge of the natural world.  PC ALL is an established community that meets twice weekly for camaraderie, activities, and continued learning; I luckily didn’t have planning responsibilities involving logistics since the normally in-person group had been meeting over Zoom already and was accustomed to guest appearances.

Honoring the NAC’s request for a fun and engaging science session on seasonal change during the week of Earth Day, I planned a Zoom session about the science behind Earth’s seasons.  During my Immersion, also via Zoom, I met the group members and observed a meeting that motivated me to explain science facts with videos (including “In Summer” sung by Frozen’s Olaf) and incorporate the science into a trivia game.  It was difficult to gauge engagement during the session itself since I could see only 5 participants while screen sharing, and I don’t know how well participants could see the “sun” (lamp) and “Earth” (globe) with which I was explaining concepts.  The biggest successes weren’t ones I’d planned for or anticipated.  First, I challenged participants’ perceptions of scientists when I explained that, no, I don’t wear a white lab coat, and, no, I don’t mix chemicals or have an evil laugh.  Second, my request that participants share photos of themselves in their favorite season was merely supposed to set the stage and involve everyone in the virtual session.  But what it did, I later realized, was get people to think about a familiar thing (seasons) as something that science can explain.

Of course, having done one PC ALL meeting over Zoom, I’m now more knowledgeable about how to be successful than I was before, when I could only anticipate potential difficulties and identify likely successes based on my observation of one meeting.  Going forward, I want to continue engaging with this group and others using the STEMAP model.  I will remember to balance the focal group’s feedback with the goals in my insight statement.  Although I found the vast majority of the NAC’s feedback on my presentation very useful, in the future, when major changes are suggested, I will be sure to ask for the contact’s reasoning and explain my own immersion process-based thoughts.  I think a dialog with focal group contacts about their suggestions would engender more thought behind engagement designs.  In the future, I’ll request at least one planning conversation if the main form of communication will be over email.  I am excited to continue community engagement work through the basis of connection that I learned through STEMAP but that, now, seems to be a glaring absence in my prior outreach.  I know that the connection and engagement skills I’ve learned will serve me not only in future virtual and in-person community interactions but also in my next career position in science policy.

Brooke Stanislawski

After setting up my webcam and adjusting the lighting, I waited patiently on the Microsoft Teams call before hearing a cacophony of youthful laughs and chatter that reminded me of schools pre-pandemic.  About 15 children piled into the bright classroom while teachers cajoled them into listening.  Then, a familiar face, Chris, greeted me and introduced me to the class, while my face was projected on a large smart-screen for everyone in the room.  In an instant, I was transported into a classroom at Neighborhood House (NH), an affordable care center for school-age children and adults located in west Salt Lake City.

At Neighborhood House, most of the school-age children come from low-income, single-parent, Spanish-speaking families.  NH programs one hour of STEM enrichment each day and value representation of diverse backgrounds in their programming.  In 2020, they devoted 250 hours to STEM learning.  During our first virtual meeting, I introduced myself as a 4^th year PhD student studying solar energy and one of the NH managers recommended that I work with one of the student groups that was starting to learn about the solar system.  It was my goal to engage with NH students to create excitement about solar energy, to learn about public perceptions of the technology, and to represent scientists as reliable and caring members of the broader community.

On the day of the activity, we began with an icebreaker that involved sharing names and one reason they love the sun while Chris and Nancy, the teachers of this class, called on students for participation.  The energy in the room only grew as we spoke about the role the sun plays in our lives.  As I introduced the topic of solar energy and why it is important, the students were glued to the smart-screen, rapid-firing responses to every question.  Nancy shared that she has solar panels on her house, which brought the topic even closer to home on their side of the webcam.

The students split into two groups (K-2nd graders in Group A, 3rd-6th graders in Group B).  Due to COVID restrictions, students that were normally grouped by age were instead grouped by school in pods, meaning that the age range included K-6^th graders.  Under Nancy’s guidance, Group A headed outside to create SunPrint Designs where they placed objects on SunPrint paper and watched the paper turn color in the sun.  Meanwhile, Group B designed their own model solar panel system.  They took a walk in an engineer’s shoes and decided where to place “solar panels,” made of SunPrint paper, on a model house.  This was the most exciting part for me because I witnessed the gears turn in their heads and hear them ask questions.  I was astounded by their curiosity, insight, and the factors they considered, from shadows to the direction of the sunrise and sunset.  These are the issues that face the solar energy field today.  Once they “installed” their panels, they headed outside to test their designs.  As the SunPrint paper panels turned from blue to white, they measured which parts of the house got the most sunlight, hinting at which locations would be best for producing electricity.

Although I could not see them yet, I knew instantly when Group A returned to the room because I heard a student yell “it didn’t work!”  The students took turns holding their SunPrints up to the camera and although it was sometimes difficult to make out the silhouettes of the objects they used, I acknowledged their experiences while encouraging them to see the magic in just the sun’s ability to change the color of the paper itself.  They shared their experiences and the objects they had chosen until Group B returned.  Each student held up their model house to the webcam and shared their thoughts on the results, demonstrating their understanding of some of the factors to consider when designing a solar panel system.

One of my favorite parts of STEM engagement with students is interacting with them one-on-on, especially with those who are less talkative.  Many times, the less talkative students are girls, and I value connecting with those individuals to learn more about their interest in STEM. I was so happy to see the excitement and engagement from many of the students, but I felt somewhat helpless in engaging with those who may not be comfortable speaking in front of the whole class. In future installments of this activity, I plan to include time for each student to walk up to the webcam individually to try to engage with those less talkative and ensure that all voices are heard.

One of the teachers mentioned that this activity seemed to stick with the students more than others had, which describes my experience as well.  The chance to engage with and learn from the students at NH stuck with me and will continue to stick with me throughout my STEM career.  I admire the incredible teachers and staff at NH and I am so thankful to have been part of such a special community.