Good question. I've been trying to encourage a sense of curiosity in the project. The data is complex (multivariate), and that is a challenge, but it does engender good discussions as we reason through our own results figures. I assign related scientific papers and we draw that into our discussions. They've been impressively analytical. I also like to join them for measurements periodically so we can all just have fun outside, which is part of the point of field ecology!

Nice idea to join them in the field for data collection!

I also require weekly summaries and documentation of their work on a team google+ site and frequent team meetings which facilitates more consistent feedback and interactions (both in writing and in a small group setting); and a platform in which both myself and Dr. Taylor can collaborate. After several months invested in the project, students began to transform curiosity into a greater sense of independence and ownership over their research.  They continued to build skill sets working with various equipment, troubleshooting technical complications, working more efficiently together as a team, and ultimately being better able to communicate their science with each other and with Dr. Taylor.   With the ongoing nature of this project, students continue to grow both in their competency and confidence in research.  

Good question, the time balance is a challenge. The project is mostly limited to 2hrs per day, 2-3 days per week. I can moderately add assignments, but their other school time is devoted to classes. Anyone planning a project like this must carefully acknowledge the time constraints.

Certainly! There are some good, easy tools out there for field measurements. And there are some really hard ones of course. The challenge is finding the combination of tools, study system, and question that fit the time constraints and can be carried out by students. That requires a lot of thought. We did ok on this project, but I'm learning from it and I think we'll do even better next year when I take on a couple more students for a complementary project. I'd recommend to anyone doing this: talk to people who have done this kind of project before to help you plan realistically.

I think it also helps that the BioTECH Juniors involved with this project have been taking research electives since their Freshman year and are somewhat familiar with field monitoring techniques as well as have a basic background in Botany from their Sophmore year.  I was very excited for my students to have the chance to participate in such rigorous and relevant plant science research!

I agree that giving students the chance to ask their own questions is key to generating ownership, increasing motivation, and making the knowledge stick. There's a balance to strike between ensuring that I get the data I need for the questions I want to answer, and letting them follow their own curiosity. Being a postdoc who needs data, I've mainly controlled the project. But for balance, I've assigned them to generate their own questions based on readings and our data. We have discussion sessions and I ask them how they think we should prioritize our next sampling efforts. I may veto their suggestions in favor of the kind of data I want to get, but they know the sampling challenges unique to each tree (stem water potential is easier on some trees than others, for example) so I defer to their experience for logistics. I think it's worked well and they feel included and invested. I only wish they could give the project more time, including allowing for more assigned readings, and I could get them even more involved!

You make some great points.

Tapping into the win-win deal: I have to thank BioTech and Fairchild for the program they put together. I was looking for 'Broader Impacts' projects for my NSF grant, and this program was simply available to me. I haven't had to do any organization besides project management. That makes this project perfect for people in the postdoc phase like me: we have the flexibility and early-career energy to participate really effectively, but not the time to create it on our own.

Student capability: I've found these students to be both very capable of critical thinking, and at the same time lacking in experience with it. This kind of project gives them practice in critically evaluating an uncertain world through evidence-based reasoning. They aren't used to not having a single right answer immediately available. But this is more like the real world. Science is a process and not a list of facts, and so is being a constructive citizen of the world.

Access: Tough topic. My understanding of this program is that kids self-select into it; their participation is based more on personal desire than past performance. I like that aspect as it gives a chance to those who might not have been inspired in other school systems. From the perspective of national demographics, the kids are largely from 'underrepresented groups', particularly Hispanic communities. But even if selection is egalitarian, the program may result in a competitive advantage to those who are lucky enough to be in proximity to it, compared to kids in other regions that lack such a program. I feel that this kind of education is so needed, and so positive, that it shouldn't be scrapped in favor of nation-wide equality. But it does conflict with the virtue of equal opportunity for all. Perhaps the only solution is national government funding for advanced education programs. Given the constant need for teaching-assistantship funding for graduate students, there could be plenty of potential to link research with high school education. The most likely path to government funding may be to make more local projects like this one to serve as case studies.

How to get started: I'll ask my co-presenters to respond to this one. But I can offer a couple ideas. Collections institutions like botanic gardens, zoos, museums, and herbaria, always need money. To generate funding, they need to demonstrate their continued relevance to the world. I think partnerships like this are of indisputable mutual value, so that angle should be recognizable to representatives of collections organizations, as long as you can get past the inertia of old institutions. A separate avenue is the NSF "BIO-ME" program, a fellowship program for graduate students to teach in high schools. I am not sure if that is still running, but check it out.

Hi Sarah~

Thank you for your kind words.  This project is a part of an intricate and innovative education system at Fairchild that allows us to engage not only the students at BioTECH High School but thousands of students in authentic research that has real-world implications and have it be integrated into the formal education system. These projects provide opportunities to pull together our research community to have students actively contribute to ongoing new research. 

I would more than happy to chat about it offline if you would like. Feel free to email me at apadolf@fairchildgarden.org so we can schedule some time. 

Thank you! I look forward to it!

Hi Rachel,

I teach Research and Experimental Design classes for the plant track portion of BioTECH Highschool students and had the lucky fortune to get to collaborate with Dr. Taylor on his project.  You asked earlier about the student selection process, and I can chime in on that one!   Dr. Taylor presented his work to my entire class allowing them an introduction into the field of forest ecology and physiology.  Following this, I also spoke with my students about research expectations and mindsets; that preliminary studies are challenging and often require the ability to shift directions. I believe it is very important that before I allowed intellectually capable students to work on this project that they also had the necessary mindset to succeed with a project of this nature. By knowing what they were  'signing up for' I believe the students kept more positive outlook towards the experience and were better adept at the inherent frustrations of unknown and unexpected outcomes and challenges along the way.  In addition, as the project became more intellectual and their data began to accumulate, the team was ready to invest the time and required 'thinking' that Dr. Taylor required of them!   Finding and maintaining a good fit between student, project, and mentor definitely contributed to the ultimate success of the research! 

I can also share that Dr. Taylors access to his team was highly enhanced through the use of a Google+ team site shared among team members, myself, Fairchild support staff and Dr. Taylor.