Partners

In

Exploring

Science

What is PIES?

Partners in Exploring Science (PIES) was a project supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation through Project CONNSTRUCT and the University of Connecticut. The project, initiated by the University of Connecticut in conjunction with Mansfield, Norwich, and Windham schools, consists of a series of weekly video broadcasts produced live each spring for 2 years. These broadcasts attempted to capture the feeling of doing science by following a doctoral candidate in physics at the University of Connecticut. By participating in these broadcasts elementary and middle school students experienced a window to research at the University of Connecticut.

The first broadcast, spring 1995, showed the scientific work of Stacey Vargus, a doctoral candidate in physics at the University of Connecticut. Over ten broadcasts Stacey shared her work on Laser materials. Student findthe topic of lasers quite "flashy!" Across these episodes, Stacey encountered several problems, including her main laser breaking. During that time her laser was being fixed, she designed and conducted calibration studies on her exerimental setup and sample of materials (a clever way to make use of down time). One day she got frustrated and just went swimming, as situation to which many kids could relate. Prompted by interactive questions from area students, using an integrated voice, video & data fiber optic networked multimedi system, Stacey told the PIES Pals about what it took to be a PhD student, her hopes for a career in teaching at a University, and a little about the physics of optics and electrons that was the basis of her dissertation research.

The second broadcast, spring 1996, showed the scientific work of Mali Balasubramanian, also a doctoral candidate in physics at UConn. Over the eight broadcasts, students accompanied Mali on a scientific journey as he used tools such as XAFS and procedures such as weighing, arc melting, and X-ray diffraction to explore why some alloys appear more ductile than others. Specifically, he attempted to explain why Nickel-Aluminum alloy, which is brittle, becomes ductile when a small percentage of Iron is added to it. If nickel-aluminum was ductile, it would be a valuable material for jet-engine turbine blades. But elementary students were not expected to pick up much of the scientific explanations for this. Rather, they enjoyed a role as peripheral participant (Lave and Wenger, 1993). What they could pick up was how Mali encountered many problems, worked with a team of scientists to solve them, felt joy, frustration, satisfaction, boredom, and occasional humor. Doing real science is messy, deeply personal, and inherently nonlinear (unlike text book presentations of the process).

Here are some additional Pictures of the PIES students.

How did students participate in PIES?

Participating school viewed the broadcasts in one of several ways. One school had a direct link with the University through a networked multimedia fiber optic link (see Young & Campbell, 1996). Students at this school could literally raise their hands and ask questions of Stacey or Mali in the TV studio. Other watched live via a microwave relay system connecting school throughout the State, Knowledge Network, while still others viewed a simultaneous re-transmission on their local cable community service channel. Another option, the broadcasts were also carried live on the local Community College Access channel carried by many local cable companies. Finally, any of these transmissions could be taped and viewed later at convenient time.

These options for viewing permitted either live or videotaped participation. Interaction with the Doc Students was afforded by fax and e-mail for all the sites not directly connected to the studio.

Some Obervations

First, there was initial concern that the topics would be "too far over the heads" of elementary and middle school students. Not so! Not only did students show a interest the doctoral students as people, they often asked interesting questions about the research as well. Questions on their level included, "Why do you use pictures in your notebook?" "How do you use computers in your work?" "Does it always work the way you planned?" and quite often, "How did you feel when that happened?" At this level we believe student gained a more realistic appreciation of the doing of science. Remarkable, there were also some extrodinary questions, including one 4th grader (perhaps prompted by a parent) who asked about quantum relativity (see Quicktime Movie of this moment)!

Second, while the live direct network link worked great, it was difficult to get other middle and elementary schools not using this high-end system to use the broadcasts live. Middle school schedules were difficult to work around, while few elementary schools were wired to receive live TV into their classrooms. In addition, the microwave system, Knowledge Network, had grown to be used to download copies of educational materials at night (onto videotape in a media center or library). I proved impossible to break this tradition to have teachers use the system for a live broadcast, although it was perfectly capable of doing this. The mindset of live interactive networked video into classrooms has not yet caught up with the available technology.

There were also many instructional design issues that emerged from the creation of these broadcasts. The largest continuing issues was how to balance authentic real-time descriptions with interest-keeping broadcast quality transmissions. Of course real-time science is often boring (imagine 20 4th graders waiting for data to be plotted on a printer at Stacey's desk). And live video from a lab (particularly one like Stacey's that counts photons so all extraneous light must be minimzed) is not easily transmitted. So we "fudged" important aspects of the graduate student's experience: some by recreating meetings and scripting the dialog, some by shooting video in the lab as things happened and editing down to a few key minutes of "B-Roll" video that we played during the live broadcast. But the compressed time frame in which we had to 1) follow the research; 2) compose the advanced teacher materials; 3) collect the video; 4) edit the video, and 5) weave a script for the 30-minute live broadcast each week, provide many constraints on creating a true "window" to University research.