|
TEA Orientation Workshop
2002 and 2003 TEA Teachers Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 5 to 12 August 2001 Notes
from the presentations are incorporated into the "topic sections" of
the TEAs Only Web Site Parcticipants Duwain Aamodt, United States Air Force Safety Don Atwood, Raytheon Representative, Raytheon Polar Services Company, Englewood, Colorado 80112 Gregg Baker, Researcher 2001/2002, Department of
Geology, SUNY - Buffalo, Buffalo, New York Laurie Benjamin, Interpreter Arlyn Bruccoli, TEA Project Coordinator, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York & Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire Andrew Caldwell, TEAntarctic 2002/2003, Douglas County High School, Castle Rock, Colorado Elizabeth Carvellas, TEArctic 2002/2003, Essex High School, Essex Junction, Vermont April Cheuvront, TEArctic 2002/2003, Table Rock Middle School, Morganton North Carolina Timothy Conner, TEArctic 1998/1999, Chenango Forks High School, Chenango Forks, New York, New York Stephanie Cramer, Interpreter Mary Ann DeMello, TEAntarctic 2002/2003, John W. Rogers
Middle School, Rockland, Massachusetts Christine
Donovan, TEArctic 2001/2002m
Desert View High School, Tucson, Arizona Todd Erickson, United States Air Force,
Safety Diane Garcia-Novick, VECO Representative, VECO Polar Resources, Littleton, Colorado Shannon Graham, TEArctic 2002/2003, Washington School for the Deaf, Vancouver, Washington Eva Grönlund, Information Officer, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden Guy Guthridge, NSF-Program Manager, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia Kim Hanisch, TEArctic 2002/2003, Ogallala High School, Ogallala, Nebraska Sharon Harris, TEAntarctic 1999/2000, Mother of Mercy High School, Cincinnati, Ohio Ronald Hochstrasser, TEArctic 2002/2003, Sycamore Community High School, Cincinnati, Ohio Jerri-Lynn Hollyfield, TEAntarctic 2002/2003, McElwain Elementary School, Birmingham, Alabama Louise Huffman, TEAntarctic 2002/2003, Kennedy Junior High School, Lisle, Illinois Virginia Husted, Interpreter Peter Keene, Photographer, Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire Glen Y. Kinoshita, Researcher 2001/2002, Global Change Research Group, San Diego State University, San Diego, California Igor Krupnik, Research Anthropologist, Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Kevin Lavigne, TEAntarctic 2000/2001, Hanover High School, Hanover, New Hampshire Debra Meese, TEA Co-Principal Investigator/Arctic Program Director, Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire Eric Muhs,
TEAntarctic 2002/2003, Seattle Academy of Arts
and Sciences, Seattle, Washington Mats Pettersson, Angeredsgymnasiet, Angered, Sweden Jason Petula, TEAntarctic 2001/2002, Tunkhannock Area High School, Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania Marge Porter, TEAntarctic 1994/1995, Woodstock
Academy, Woodstock, Connecticut John Rand, Polar Engineering, Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire Lynette Reep, Interpreter Stephanie Shipp, TEA Co-Principal Investigator /Antarctic Program Director, Rice University, Department of Earth Science, Houston, Texas & The American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York David Silvernail, TEA Program Evaluator, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine Joan Sonneborn, Interpreter Kathie Stevens, TEArctic 2001/2002, Farragut Primary School, Knoxville, Tennessee Steve Stevenoski, TEAntarctic 1995/1996, Lincoln High School, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin - On Site in Wisconsin Wayne Sukow, NSF–Program Manager, Directorate for Education and Human
Resources, Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education, National Science
Foundation, Arlington, Virginia Dallas Trople, TEArctic 2002/2003, Sedro-Woolley High School, Sedro-Woolley, Washington Priit
Vesilind, Senior Writer, National
Geographic, Washington, D.C. Ross Virginia, Researcher 2000/2001, Environmental Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire Michael Weiss, TEAntarctic 2002/2003, Yarmouth High
School, Yarmouth, Maine Clarice Yentsch, TEA Co-Principal Investigator, Transfer Program Director, American
Museum of Natural History, New York, New York Agenda Sunday, 5 August 2000 Arrive at Hotel 7:00 Meet in Hotel Lobby 7:30 Icebreaker at the Home of Deb Meese - light munchies Monday, 6 August 2000 7:00 Meet in Hotel Lobby; depart for CRREL 7:30 Sign-In at CRREL 8:00 Welcome, Introductions, Logistics of CRREL (Deb Meese, Stephanie Shipp, Clarice Yentsch) 9:50 How the TEA Program Works Overview of Objectives of TEA and Orientation (Sharon Harris, Tim Conner) Who Does What (Deb Meese and Stephanie Shipp) 10:10 Break 10:20 Living and Working in Polar Regions Chris Donovan Kevin Lavigne 11:20 Break 11:30 Living and Working in Polar Regions Sharon Harris Tim Conner 12:30 Lunch in small discussion groups 1:30 Gear
"Grab Bag" of ECW Gear (Marge Porter and Kathie Stevens) Discussion
of Gear to Take, Hygiene Issues 2:20 Break 2:30 Arctic
and Antarctic Logistics - Presentations and Discussions (Diane
Garcia-Novick and Don Atwood) 3:20 Break 3:30 Discussion:
Tools and Ideas for When Things Don't Go Well (Discussion Leader: Sharon
Harris) 4:00 Home
Considerations (Discussion Leader: Kathie Stevens) 4:30 Break 4:40 School Considerations (Discussion Leader: Marge Porter) 5:10 Daily Evaluation; Questions 5:30 Close of Day Group Dinner Homework: Re-Review TEA Responsibilities
7:30 Meet in Hotel Lobby; depart for CRREL 8:00 Check-In / Plan of Day 8:15 Polar Research - Presentation and Discussion (Amy Leventer) 9:00 Break 9:10 Discussion; What makes a successful TEA Experience from a Researcher's Perspective? (Discussion Leader: Amy Leventer, Ross Virginia, Glen Kinoshita, and Greg Baker) 9:40 Panel Discussion: What TEAs and Researchers Expect of Each Other (Discussion Leader: Kevin Lavigne, Kathie Stevens, Marge Porter, Chris Donovan, Amy Leventer, Ross Virginia, Glen Kinoshita, and Greg Baker 10:10 Break-Out Discussion Groups (with researchers) 11:00 Break 11:10 NSF's Role in, and View of, TEA (Wayne Sukow, Guy Guthridge, Fae Korsmo) 12:00 Sweden's "TEA" Program (Eva Grönlund) 12:30 Lunch 1:30 Arctic Cultures: Presentation and Discussion (Discussion Leader: Igor Krupnik) 2:50 Break 3:00 Field Safety 4:00 Daily Evaluation; Questions 4:30 Close of Day 6:30 Outdoor Field Safety (return to hotel at 9:00 pm) Wednesday, 8 August 2000 7:30 Meet in Hotel Lobby; depart for CRREL 8:00 Check-In / Plan of Day 8:15 Polar Research - Presentation and Discussion (Greg Baker) 9:00 Break 9:10 Group Discussion of TEA Responsibilities (Deb Meese and Stephanie Shipp) 10:00 Break 10:10 Discussion: What Should a Journal Include? How Is the Science Captured? (Discussion Leader: Sharon Harris) Break-Out Discussion Groups - review and comment on journal entries Re-group and discuss elements of strong journaling Discussion: Journaling the Science Experience (Priit Vesilind) Break within session as needed 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Discussion: What Should an Image Include? How Is the Science Captured? (Discussion Leader: Kevin Lavigne) Break-Out Discussion Groups - review and comment on images Re-group and discuss elements of strong imaging 1:50 Break / Tour of CRREL (take notes and digital images of science in action during tour) Break within session as needed 3:30 Technology Discussion in 2 Groups - Web Page Overview, Journals, Images, and a little HTML (Stephanie Shipp and Deb Meese; Priit Vesilind available for consultation) Send Journals and Images Break within session as needed 5:00 Daily Evaluation; Questions 5:30 Close of Day Homework: Finish journal entry and develop plan for journal as a whole. What do colleagues and students want to learn from your experience? How will you best convey all aspects of the science in which you are involved? What style will best suit the audience? Provide Priit Vesilind and Peter Keene with copies of journals at the start of the day on Thursday Thursday, 9 August 2000 7:30 Meet in Hotel Lobby; depart for CRREL 8:00 Check-In / Plan of Day / Copies of journal entries to Priit Vesilind and Peter Keene 8:15 Polar Research - Presentation and Discussion (Ross Virginia) 9:00 Break 9:30 Review individual images and journals with Priit Vesilind and Peter Keene Revise journals based on input Break within session as needed 11:30 Framing Transfer Responsibilities (Clarice Yentsch) Discussion of Transfer Paths to Classrooms, Colleagues, and Community (Kathie Stevens and Marge Porter) Groups Revisit and Revise Transfer Plans Break within session as needed 1:00 Evaluation; Questions, Lunch and Open Afternoon Homework: Review and Revise Individual Classroom and Colleague Transfer Plans Friday, 10 August 2000 7:30 Meet in Hotel Lobby; depart for CRREL 8:00 Check-In / Plan of Day 8:15 Polar Research - Presentation and Discussion (John Rand) 9:00 Break 9:10 Break-Out Groups for Sharing Revised Transfer Plans Practice Real Audio (Steve Stevenoski - On-site in Wisconsin) 10:30 Break 10:40 Partnering with Colleagues (Clarice Yentsch, Marge Porter, Bruce Wellman) 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Continue Discussion: Partnering with Colleagues (Clarice Yentsch, Marge Porter, Bruce Wellman) 4:00 Write Daily Journal / Send Images 4:30 Daily Evaluation; Questions 5:00 Close of Day Group Dinner Homework: Document Plans for Partnering with Colleagues Saturday, 11 August 2000 7:30 Meet in Hotel Lobby; depart for CRREL 8:00 Check-In / Plan of Day 8:10 Continue Discussion: Partnering with Colleagues (Clarice Yentsch) 10:30 Discuss Remaining Questions from TEAs Closing Evaluation; Questions 12:00 Close of Orientation Comment Cards
Question asked before close of each day: “What were the highlights and lowlights for
you today?” Monday, August 6, 2001 New TEAs High: Great presentations from past TEAs. I’m excited. Low: Some parts rushed High: descriptions of experiences by former TEAs. Low: No real lowlights for the day. High: The whole day! It was SO interesting that a very long day flew by. Thanks for the frequent breaks. Low: I would have said “no chocolate” but it appeared! Thanks for the great day! High: seeing pictures and hearing stories from past TEAs; freedom to ask questions throughout. Low: time sitting…but I agree it is unavoidable & necessary, so I am not expecting or suggesting a change. High: It was all energizing and interesting. Thanks! Got lots of “burning questions” answered. Low: No low points. High: Kevin, Tim’s presentations on experience – funny, got me more excited to go. Low: Cutting Sharon’s “when things go bad” session short. I was really interested in solutions to the problems raised. High: Excellent schedule – various topics and presenters – well organized! Low: Can’t think of anything except the number of people is a little too much for this room. High: It is difficult for me to pinpoint only one thing as a highlight. I was fascinated by all of it, including information regarding the Arctic even though I am South bound. Low: no low points, I’d be making one up. Great job – Excellent pace. High: Great general information – many questions were answered. Past TEA presentations were very helpful! I am a very active person and I find it very difficult to sit for long periods. …but understandable given the nature of the information today. High: A good day overall – very informative. The ECW presentation was really interesting I think that the staff and experienced TEAs all model the enthusiasm they preach. Low: no negatives High: The more I know and learn, the more excited I get! Low: there hasn’t been a low light except that a piece of pizza dropped off my plate onto the ground! High: Tim Conner’s talk Low: you know, I thought the program went really well – Speakers were good and there was a lot of ground covered! I liked the adherence to agenda and frequent short breaks. Experienced TEAs and facilitators High: Living and working in the polar regions, ECW gear Low: home and school considerations (probably because of long day and many talks) - Matts High: Organization of time and types of topics covered were well done and great information. Low: not meeting everyone. High: Hearing about post TEA testimonials Low: none Comment: a vessel TEA testimonial would have been helpful. It is quite different an experience and there seem to be a lot of parcticipants that are matched with vessel-based investigators. High: Discussion of what can go wrong in that it prepares for real issues. Low: The disorganized slide show by one of the experienced TEAs. High: Learning more about how the science is integrated back into the classroom. This has given me many ideas of how to incorporate this into future research projects. Low: all was cool. High: Kevin’s presentation was great! Low: none really High: schedule ran pretty smoothly – Marge – great talk Low: some presentations seemed scattered High: hearing other people’s experiences Low: none I’d like to learn how to do a powerpoint like Kevin’s High: Meeting face to face with everyone to discuss collaboration with the Swedes Low: need more talk time Would like a place to go during repeat presentations so that I can work on computer project. I would do it during presentations out of respect for the presenter. High: Good folks, good information, nice flow Low: room is too full; inappropriate biomass to volume ratio! We are house guests, bathroom incident. Dinner overwhelmed the restaurant! High: Most talks were stellar and it was exciting to see how past TEAs owned the information. Low: Still a little too much talking “at” this PM High: Interaction with people who know what is what Low: Too much talk. I know – hard to avoid! Tuesday, August 7, 2001 High: Panels successful, Low: However panelist had shifted responsibilities and had not time to prepare. High: Good presentations, but not interactive Low: survival vs. safety; isn’t frost bite our biggest safety threat? No info. High: Survival information in terms of being something that our kids would be excited to hear about. Low: The “timing” of cultural talk. Very interesting but hard to have a lecture in the afternoon. Suggest flip-flop lecture to AM and panel talks to after lunch. High: hearing from researcher’s view of what they expect of all of us. Low: survival presentation High: I think the Jason/Matts collaboration (Sweden) is going to be a wonderful experience. Kevin and Marge have been a wonderful resource to me personally. Low: none High: It was good to hear the science PI’s viewpoint. Low: Harder to sit today. It was interesting, but wow I’m tired. High: Survival guys, Igor Low: Jammed agenda. Glen needed more time! (Should not make additions to agenda) High: Very nice day; Igor’s talk very interesting! High: Today was even better than yesterday. I really enjoyed Deb’s and Igor’s presentations. Very professional! Low: I wish I had more time to talk with Guy about my hopes for research. High: Survival skills, choosing the sites Low: The Arctic Program facilitator, Faye, not being present High: again, presentations of individual research was valuable as were the panel discussions. Low: none High: Survival guys were one, Igor another, loved Deb’s talk and other research talk. Low: pretty gruelling but still great! High: Igor was great – Low: Igor did not stay longer. High: Deb’s presentation about her ice core research was fascinating Low: Panel session was dominated by one scientist and the session needed to be longer High: the science talks and safety talk Low: panel discussions High: researcher/TEA panel Low: sitting – BUT it can’t be helped – not to worry! High: Hearing about other research, parcticipation in sharing experiences Low: Lack of TIME – could be better organized with more time! High: Deb’s talk Low: shortness of Igor’s presentation (It was SO GOOD)…but SOO SHORT Wednesday, August 8, 2001 High: the biomass/volume relationship of the room is much improved High: a great day, I especially enjoyed the tour and journal ideas. I like the organization of this program so far. High: Priit’s talk. It was excellent. Low: Feel overwhelmed with some of the technology…what is BEST to bring, etc. High: The camera work was very helpful. Enjoyed CRREL tour. Especially cooing off in the cold room! High: The presentation from Priit was very useful. His points were given in a very concise and straight-forward manner. High: Priit from National Geographic. Super web organization Low: I’m fine with everything, thanks! High: The presentations on journal writing and images were extremely helpful. Low: It would have been nice to see some of the CRREL labs actually in use. High: Mini-presentations – photo, journaling, video – all excellent! The room space is much better. Low: tiring, but nothing anyone can do. High: journaling information Low: I’m tired…but STILL excited to learn more High: Very nice day. Writing and photography tips were great. Nice tour. High: The survival guys were great last night. I want to get some of that stuff. Not enough time for dinner however. Kevin’s videos are awesome. High: Getting to meet Dr. Susan Taylor today and chat about meteorites. Thanks Arlyn! Low: slight attitude from Marie the tour guide. I really did enjoy Leonard’s enthusiasm for his work. High: I enjoyed Greg’s presentation – the research was very interesting. Priit’s journal writing suggestions were great. I hope I do them justice. Lots of questions regarding video equipment were answered. Low: Parts of the tour, only because I often could not hear what was said. High: Kevin’s presentation and the journal presentation. Low: I’m still concerned about the lack of flexibility allowed for the mentoring program. I understand the restrictions iimposed by NSF, but I also know what happens when you turn good creative teachers loose!! Thursday, August 9, 2001 High: web posting is beautifully streamlined and easy Low: I suggest some way to do more inquiry based learning support – it was pretty quick! High: Excellent inquiry activity, it gave me some ideas for my classroom. Low: feeling overwhelmed with expectations – you know – delayed response! High: time to do journals Low: none High: getting so much time to work on my journals and pictures Low: none High: I am very excited about all the new technology I am learning. I can’t wait to get my journal and images up and going. I appreciated Priit’s critique. High: nice to have the afternoon off Low: lunch at CRREL…no need for it with the afternoon off…would like to explore. High: the posting of journals and images was the most meaningful. High: I think the hands-on inquiry was rushed, but worth it. Better if – like many things – it had more time. Priit was great! High: Brainstorming. Ross Virginia’s presentation was outstanding Low: none High: All of it – another great day. Low: The truth is, it has been difficult to come up with a “low” each day. Again, the pace with frequent breaks is great – plus allows us as TEAs time to interact and share ideas. High: Great day! High: Nice day; Ross talk very interesting even for me who is not into biology. Good with group activities and discussions. High: Time for journaling is concentrated and meaningful with varied discussion and work formats. Low: could have minor improvement with coordination among presenting parties High: visiting with Peter and Priit…having them evaluate/comment on our work. Low: lunch variety – maybe a fruit/veggie plate rather than heavy food once? Friday, August 12, 2001 High: positive interaction with Wellman Low: more time High: It’s Friday! Low: It’s Friday! High: Your presenter was good Low: I lack confidence that any TEA has completed 140 hours (mentoring) High: Although the most uncomfortable for me, the most valuable was the morning session with Bruce Wellman. High: I though that the time spent on fleshing out some mentoring plans was very useful. High: The opportunity to share ideas and the great ideas generated. Low: Actually a concern – Will we get a copy of the ideas generated yesterday and today? (Yes) High: I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation on the South Pole. It is fascinating to learn about the design process, construction, considerations, cost, timeline etc. Low: Today was the only day I have been disappointed with something. I did not find Bruce Wellman’s presentation helpful. I believe the topic of mentoring is important, so it was not the topic, but the speaker. I’ll certainly chat with you about this if you want more specifics. High: John Rand’s talk very interesting to me. Good presentation. Good group discussion and also interesting talk with my “ conversation partner” Low: I think Bruce Wellman’s talk and activites were a waste of time. High: Bruce Wellman’s presentations and our follow-up discussions helped “gel” my mentoring plan. His style of presentation – active listening and learning should be incorporated into the Monday and Tuesday orientation schedule. Low: I forgot – The Sunday icebreaker was great, but many of us had not eaten dinner and had only a snack for lunch. By Monday AM we were STARVED! Please more food of dinner variety was needed. High: The Wellman’s session – MORE! Hoes for next year: longer session with more skill building and specific discussions for new TEA’s to build their proposals. High: Alleviation of fears for contacting colleagues and better understanding of expectations. Low: Lack of concrete template of mentoring plan or expectations. Experienced TEA’s did not provide clear distinction between transfer and mentoring. Much of what they mentioned would not be recognized by the NSF. I’m not an externally motivated person, so I’m not looking at the 140 hours as an upper limit, but I’m afraid trying to meet that requirement will limit the possibilities of transfer. At least it seems I’m not along on this confusion. High: I enjoyed all the presentations today. Nice discussion by the engineer. Thanks. High: Great presentation by Wellman. Still feel our mentoring hours should include those working on curriculum. High: The mentoring proposal has become much clearer. The bonding between the new TEAs has been a good experience. Lots of good ideas have been exchanged. High: Swapping ideas on mentor plans. Low: Bruce Wellman – I believe this is common sense. High: Bruce Wellman was magical. |