Oregon State University Free Choice Learning Lab

Okay, so I started things off as a bit of a downer. Considering this is only the third Oceans conference to include education strands, it’s great that it’s being supported.

However, I wonder if a large scientific conference is the best place to sell outreach to scientists for a number of reasons. For one thing, the education research sessions basically competed with the scientific sessions, almost as if it was a parallel conference, scheduled at the same time so one physically could not attend both. Shawn noted that the evening and lunch workshops on outreach are often well attended, for example (at least by graduate students), but that doesn’t get our research out there.

For another thing, the education presentations focused a lot on specific program evaluation results, as I mentioned yesterday. In that way, they really were not speaking to scientists who were looking to get involved in outreach, at least beyond trying to make the case for it in terms of the personal fulfillment results and opportunities for increased funding. The sessions were by and large not aimed at delivering the skills to a broad audience that people could take back to whatever institution they worked with. The specificity of many projects showed more that such programs were possible and rewarding, without offering opportunities for people at other places ways to get involved. On the other hand, Ari Shapiro of Woods Hole (and often heard on NPR) gave many how-to examples for either partnering for general media publishing or do-it-yourself podcasting and multimedia presentations. The low-cost, do-it-yourself options of course appealed to the educators in the audience as well.

Nevertheless, for those of us that are going back to our institutions and hoping to help the scientists we work with there, there were several interesting findings from the sessions:

1) Scientists are still largely unaware of the work we do, especially that there is educational literature out there about what works.

2) All participants in these programs, educators, scientists, and the ostensible “audience” each play roles as both teachers/facilitators and learners at various times. Educators and public audiences both have frequent opportunities for reflecting on their experiences during programs. Most of this occurs via feedback to each other as both groups are fairly familiar with their roles in these situations. On the other hand, the scientists often lack such opportunities outside of program evaluations, to reflect on either of their roles, or even the fact that they play both of those roles during the experience. They probably also need tools to help them do that reflection.

3) There are a lot of great programs reaching maybe 50 teachers at a time. If each of those teachers reach say 200 students each per year, that’s still only 10,000 students, with perhaps a little more via “trickle down” to other teachers that the program teachers work with. In a country with maybe 100 million students, we have a lot of work to do. And we need a lot of money to do it. And we need evidence of these things working and ways to can scale them up wherever possible.

4) We have a bit of work to do even among our education community about the value of qualitative data and what it can tell you, including the fact that there are people out there that can help analyze that data if you have it.

5) We need more research that’s applicable to a lot of situations, not just evaluations of great projects.

I love being in an emerging field, but some days it’s not emerging fast enough.

No, it’s not the George Clooney movie sequel. It’s a chance for us to blog near-real-time about our experiences at getting the word out about what we do to the scientists we’re trying to work with. Several of the lab members are attending the Oceans 2012 meeting in Salt Lake City this week. The meeting is a joint offering of The Oceanography Society, Americal Geophysical Union, and the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography.

The meeting is a typical science conference: many many many presentations in all sorts of subdisciplines of ocean sciences, and about one session on education, outreach, communication, evaluation, and student engagement. So, we still have an uphill battle to reach those folks who need to do “broader impacts” for their grants or just as part of the greater good. That is, like recycling, there isn’t always a personal gain, but when you consider the bigger picture, the argument is that it’s the right thing to do (thanks, Jude).

In listening to the first set of education and evlauation presentations this morning, it struck me that the evaluations almost all noted that the majority of their participants in delivering outreach were graduate students. The good news is, the graduate students were very enthusiastic about the programs and found it rewarding both by learning new ways of doing teaching and outreach and also by improving their own research at some times. This bodes well for exciting this new generation of scientists to get involved in outreach.

The bad news, though, is by and large, the practicing scientists were still missing. Are they thinking that their grad students will “take care of it” for them? Do they still find it a hassle, unrewarding, time-consuming, and an activity that basically takes away from their own research? Are they afraid of kids? Have they tried it and had a bad response (probably because they got little guidance on how to do it in the first place)? This is a large cadre of professionals that we can’t afford to ignore, no matter how excited the next generation is. We can’t let them, or ourselves as outreach and education professionals and researchers, cop out.

So, the question remains, how do we reach this population? I’m hoping to talk up our program and work as the week progresses, but this venue is challenging, to say the least, with only a few general mixers and the sheer number of simultaneous presentations.

Dare we hope in 2014 for a plenary talk about education and outreach for *all* scientists? Or educational presentations that aren’t competing with the scientific ones? Or scientists that start to attend education and outreach conferences? A woman can dream …

Wow, I thought I had seen lousy customer service, but Nuance is taking the cake. I have tried to contact the audio mining software company for the last two weeks, through their Enterprise sales web site (no response to my email), and on the phone to about 4 different phone numbers (no response to my voice messages). Tuesday the 7th I spent about 3 hours on hold waiting for their Enterprise sales departments (including multiple calls where I’d been hung up on while on hold, and voice messages on this line asking them to contact me), after trying other departments and complaining. Their other departments, however, don’t even know that the product I’m interested in exists. They did try to contact the Enterprise sales department themselves, however, but even customer service couldn’t get through! The hold “music” ironically talks about how customers go online to complain about poor customer service, and how their products can help you keyword search those web sites. And their website tag line: “As a speech company, we put a premium on listening – get in touch with Nuance today!” Uh, no you don’t.

I finally got ahold of someone in the Enterprise sales Thursday the 9th after a similar hold experience and at least 30 minutes on hold that time. Claudia told me they needed to know my budget, which I didn’t actually know. She said they wouldn’t call us back if we didn’t have at least 5-10K. I told her sure, then we’d have that if that’s what we needed. She took my name, phone number, and email, as well as Mark’s. Now, another week later, no response.

I’ve been hung up on 3 times this morning. I tried the customer service department again, and now I’m on hold while they try to contact the Enterprise sales people for me. The hold music has switched back from the stuff that customer service plays to that of the Enterprise line, so I’m suspecting customer service is not getting back to me, either. (One hour later, no response). By the way, Nuance, this does not bode well for our confidence in your technical support or customer service in general.

So, I’m putting it out to the web: if anyone has an audio mining software solution to search several camera audio feeds for keywords (basically something that competes with Nuance’s Dragon Audio Mining SDK), please contact us through this blog. Let’s talk. It’s more than your competition is willing to do.

[Specifically, we need something speaker-independent and that processes files automatically].

Left to right: Harrison, Bill and Laura discuss wave tank placement and accessibility.

With new tools and exhibits on the way, we’ve had plenty to keep us busy. We’ve come up with a new wave tank layout. We’ve been working with our new Open Exhibits Kinect system. We’ve tested the limits of face-recognition demo software. We’ve laughed. We’ve cried. We’ve waved our arms around in closets.

Mark tries out the Kinect interface from Open Exhibits

For a brief overview of the research camera placement process (boldly undertaken by McKenzie), take a look at this video.

This is a video of Pearl’s relocation Friday. I always enjoy seeing staff, students, volunteers and visitors united in enthusiasm and concern for an individual.

Note what Sid says to Pearl at 0:21. The animals in our care help bring the world to our visitors. Our debt is deeply felt.