Scientists and Public Outreach: Participation, Motivations, and Impediments Elisabeth Andrews Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0216 Alex Weaver Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0216 Daniel Hanley School of Education and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0216 Jeffrey Shamatha Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Ginger Melton Ethnography and Evaluation Research, Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder CO, 80309-0580 [email protected]

ABSTRACT is a nation-wide call to realign university missions to fulfill their service duties to civil society (see for example Public funding agencies are increasingly requiring Rice, 2003; Dyer, 1999; McGrath, 1999; Ray, 1999; Byrne, "broader impact" components in research grants. 1998; Votruba, 1996). Universities are being asked to Concurrently, national educational leaders are calling for practice what the late Ernest Boyer, former president of scientists to partner with educators to reform science the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of education. Through the use of survey and interview Teaching, called the "scholarship of engagement" (Boyer, data, our study examined the participation of 1996). The scientific community, in particular, is being researchers, faculty members, and graduate students asked to participate in education reform. Leaders of the from federal research laboratories and a Research I National Science Foundation and National Science Board university, who were involved in K-12 and public call for scientists to help reform science and math outreach activities. education by engaging in "effective equal partnerships We found that scientists were often recruited into with K-12 schools" (Colwell and Kelly, 1999). Scientists K-12 outreach activities by local departmental liaisons, are needed to help coordinate precollege and colleagues, or professors. Scientists most frequently gave college-level academic requirements, assist with teacher presentations, tutored, and organized or judged science preparation and professional development, develop fairs. Outreach participation varied by career stage, job instructional materials, and improve research on type, and gender. The strongest motivating factors were learning. They can serve in various roles, such as a desire to contribute and enjoying their outreach advocates, resources, or partners to students, teachers, experiences. For graduate students and researchers, a schools of education, science centers, and advisory third motivating factor was the chance to improve their boards (Bybee and Morrow, 1998). Bruce Alberts, former teaching and communication skills. Scientists of all president of the National Academy of Science, calls these types, however, viewed outreach as a form of volunteer partnerships "an important national priority" (Alberts, work that was auxiliary to their other responsibilities. 1993). At the same time, public agencies that fund Time constraints due to other, higher priorities, the lower scientific research are increasingly requiring that value placed on outreach by departments, and a lack of researchers invest some of their funding in education or detailed information about outreach opportunities were outreach activities that have a "broader impact" (NSF significant barriers to participation. Even so, only a few 2002; NSF 2001; NSF 1997; NASA, 1996). Research scientists viewed their outreach experiences negatively, projects funded by NASA, for example, place "significant mostly due to classroom management, logistical, or emphasis on delivering the benefit of [their] research organizational problems, or a lack of outreach skills. endeavors to [their] public audiences" (Christian, 2003). Even though many of the scientific societies and academies are already involved in public outreach INTRODUCTION (Rogers, 1981), and despite the national effort toward outreach and engagement, little is known about the Outreach has been defined as "a meaningful and public service or "outreach" mission of American mutually beneficial collaboration with partners in universities (Dyer, 1999). The literature on scientists' education, business, public and social service. It involvement in outreach is even more sparse, and most represents that aspect of teaching that enables learning of what is known comes from program descriptions (see beyond the campus walls, that aspect of research that for example Christian, 2003). makes what we discover useful beyond the academic One form of outreach for which there is a growing community, and that aspect of service that directly body of literature that may provide insights into K-12 benefits the public" (Ray, 1999). Science outreach may and public outreach is service learning (Eyler, 2000). In include tutoring, mentoring, giving presentations or service learning, students learn and develop through facilitating inquiry, supporting teachers, judging science active participation in thoughtfully organized service fairs, developing resources and curricula, interacting experiences that meet actual community needs and that with children or teachers in summer or after-school are coordinated with a formal educational institution to programs, and so forth. address and support an academic curriculum (Colorado, Historically, outreach from universities to the public 2003). A few studies have examined the motivations and has been viewed as important to a democratic society obstacles that faculty experience regarding service and the economy (Kezar, 2000; Boyer, 1996). Today, there learning (Driscoll, 2000; Gyles and Eyler, 1998). Some

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 281 faculty members are motivated to incorporate service science faculty members. Since 88% of these voluntary learning out of a sense of professional responsibility respondents had been involved in science outreach at (Hammond, 1994), "…to apply their knowledge toward some point in their professional or educational careers, the betterment of society" (Holland, 1999). Others are we shifted the focus of the study to examine their motivated by the belief that service learning has a experiences rather than that of scientists in general. In positive effect on student academic learning and this article, data from the scientists who had never been personal growth (Abes et al., 2002; Holland, 1999; involved in outreach were omitted because the sample Hammond, 1994). size of eleven was deemed too small to yield meaningful Factors that inhibit faculty involvement in service results. Of the respondents included in the study, 65% learning have also been described. In its annual survey of were currently doing outreach. Further research would more than 900 institutions, Campus Compact (2002) help confirm our findings, as there might have been reported that 64% of the respondents cited time and additional scientists who do outreach that did not return faculty teaching loads as the greatest obstacles to the survey. integrating service learning into their courses. Time Most of the graduate students came from the constraints include the time needed to create new departments of chemistry and biochemistry (46%), activities, cultivate partnerships, organize logistics, and geological sciences (26%), and atmospheric and ocean recruit students (Abes et al., 2002; Holland, 1999; sciences (17%). The remaining few came from Hammond, 1994). Difficulties of coordination and mathematics (7%) and physics (4%). The scientific logistics are another deterrent (Abes et al., 2002; Holland, researchers and faculty members worked in the same 1999). Recognition and rewards, especially in the tenure fields as the graduate students. The nine faculty process, are also a problem (Holland, 1999; Hammond, members who were interviewed came from the 1994), although those with tenure are much less chemistry and biochemistry and geological sciences concerned about recognition and rewards than those departments at the university. Slightly under half of the without it (Abes et al., 2002). From these findings on respondents involved in outreach were women, which is service learning, we gain insight into issues to examine an over-representation relative to their participation in when studying outreach in general. these disciplines; but only one interview subject was Our study examines the ways in which scientists are female. involved in outreach to K-12 schools and the general All survey respondents were asked about their public and the factors that motivate or deter their current and past participation in outreach to K-12 schools participation. In particular, we look at the experiences of and the general public. In the survey, the quantitative graduate students and faculty members at the University questions assessed demographic information, the extent of Colorado at Boulder and of scientific researchers at of respondents' participation and experience in science nearby federal research laboratories. Our goal is to gain outreach at different stages of their careers, how they got insight that will inform the activities of scientists, involved in science outreach, and what motivated or outreach educators, and funding agencies, and thus prevented their participation in science outreach. A benefit the national effort to create the "engaged combination of quantitative and qualitative questions institution." This information will be of particular value examined the respondents' reasons for doing outreach, to researchers and educators who seek to more their experiences, and their opinions about how to effectively meet the new "broader impact" requirements increase scientist participation in outreach. of public funding agencies. Our study also makes several The semi-structured interviews with faculty contributions to the outreach literature. First, it explores members examined their involvement and perspectives the broader topic of outreach rather than just service on science outreach; the factors that motivate or learning. Second, it examines the largely unexplored role discourage their participation; the perceived attitudes of research scientists and graduate students in outreach toward outreach of their department, university, and and how their experiences and perspectives vary from funding agencies; and their perspectives on graduate those of faculty members. Third, it emphasizes scientists' students' participation in outreach. The interviews involvement in K-12 outreach, a little-studied subject of ranged from approximately 20 to 90 minutes in length. critical importance. All of the interviews were audiotaped. The quantitative data were tabulated and analyzed METHODS using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data, both from the surveys and interviews, were analyzed by Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected for identifying themes and using a form of thematic analysis this study, through the use of written surveys and that is more similar to a broad thematic analysis semi-structured interviews. Surveys were sent to (Boyatzis, 1998) than to the more specific form of domain approximately 325 scientists between late 1999 and analysis (Spradley, 1980). The data were interrogated mid-2000, before public funding agencies had begun to (Delamont, 1992) based on several primary questions require that research have a "broader impact." The about the motivations and barriers to participation in surveys included both fixed-response and open-ended outreach and how to increase scientists' involvement in qualitative questions. About 285 of the recipients were outreach. science graduate students at the University of Colorado at Boulder, while the remaining surveys were sent to INVOLVEMENT IN OUTREACH science faculty members and to research scientists employed at nearby federal research laboratories. Nine In this section we explore how scientists were recruited randomly selected science faculty members from the the into outreach, the frequency with which they same university, a Research I university, were chosen for participated, the types of outreach they did, and the time the semi-structured interviews. they spent on outreach activities. We received a total of 73 survey responses (24% response rate) from 48 graduate students, 13 research Recruitment into Outreach - Most scientists became scientists (including 2 postdoctoral students), and 12 involved in outreach through an institution-based

282 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 281-293 Figure 1. Recruitment Avenues Figure 2. Outreach Activities Undertaken outreach coordinator or through their connections with a years of their Ph.D. programs, and thus have more colleague or professor (see Figure 1). Furthermore, 17% flexibility to participate in outreach. of researchers and faculty members indicated that their involvement began with a personal request to participate Types of Outreach Activities - The most frequently in outreach. Gender differences were found in graduate reported outreach activity for researchers, faculty students' recruitment avenues. Many more male than members, and graduate students was giving female graduate students became involved through presentations (see Figure 2). Scientists' outreach department liaisons or fellow students. In contrast, only activities were also influenced by scientists' career stage female graduate students were recruited through and job type. Graduate students more frequently tutored community or science organizations. This gender than the other scientists; most of the graduate students difference was also apparent in the students' reports of also reported having tutored as undergraduates. recruitment as undergraduates where women more Researchers more frequently mentored students and often became involved through organizations, while teachers and helped with teacher professional men became involved through fellow students. Both development than other scientists, and researchers were were recruited by professors. Recruitment avenues also less likely to give presentations at work. Researchers and varied by career stage. Most faculty and many faculty members more often acted as a resource for researchers became involved via participation in their school teachers than did graduate students. own children's education, while graduate students did not, probably because most of them did not have Time Spent on Outreach Activities - Graduate students school-aged children. spent, on average, 5.4 hours per month on outreach. Of these, two thirds spent 3-7 hours per month while the Participation Rates - Scientists' involvement in other third spent as few as 0.5 hours or as many as 15 outreach varied by gender and career stage. Twice as hours per month. This estimate was uncorrelated with many female (83%) than male (43%) graduate students gender, seniority in graduate school (number of years to had been involved in outreach as undergraduates. After graduation) or field of study. Researchers recollected entering graduate school, some of the women stopped spending 7 hours per month on outreach when they were participating in outreach while many men began to graduate students. participate; during graduate school, 75% of the female In contrast, two thirds of the faculty members respondents (18 respondents) and all of the male subjects reported spending 1-3 hours per month on outreach. The (14 respondents) participated in outreach. Thus, female other third spent double that amount of time. However, graduate students participated at a higher rate than the vast majority of faculty members said they would be expected based upon their representation in the sciences. more willing to participate in outreach if research Similarly, female researchers were much more likely to showed that it was effective in increasing student be involved in outreach than their male counterparts. In knowledge and improving student attitudes toward contrast, male and female faculty members were more science. equally represented in science outreach based on their In summary, scientists were most often recruited representation in the disciplines. into outreach through institution-based outreach The rate of participation also varied among graduate coordinators or through colleagues and professors. students at different stages of their doctoral programs. Faculty, and to some extent researchers, often became Three-quarters of those currently involved in outreach involved in outreach to participate in their own had only one or two years remaining until graduation. children's education. Women participated more We conjecture that, since these students have typically frequently than men in outreach activities as did completed their coursework and examinations, they graduate students in the last two years of their doctoral have fewer time constraints and competing program. Scientists' outreach activities most often responsibilities compared to students in the first two involved giving presentations, although role differences existed: graduate students more often tutored students,

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 283 Graduate Students1 Faculty Members Top motivators: Top motivators: 1. Desire to contribute 1. Desire to contribute 2. Improve teaching skills 1. Fun or enjoyment (tied) 3. Fun or enjoyment Less important motivators: Less important motivators: 2. Service credit 4. Advisor or departmental support 3. Experience as a recipient 5. Funding 4. Improve teaching skills 6. Academic credit2 2 5. Departmental support 7. Experience as a recipient 6. Funding

Table 1. Motivators for participating in outreach (in order of decreasing importance). 1Includes researchers reflecting back upon their graduate experience. 2Researchers rated “experience as recipient” second to last and “academic credit” as least important. research scientists more frequently mentored students Researchers and faculty members often described their and teachers and helped with teacher professional desire to increase students' appreciation for science as development, and researchers and faculty more often well as students' and teachers' science knowledge: served as a resource to teachers. Graduate students spent about 5.5 hours/month on outreach while most faculty Science is a pretty exciting field. If one can explain members spent half that amount of time. that excitement to students in K-12, then some of them may then pick it up and make their own FACTORS THAT MOTIVATE SCIENTISTS' careers just on that basis. I think the hope that PARTICIPATION when you do these things is, some of them will think, "That is really interesting; I would like to The data presented in this section indicate that scientists follow that up."(Faculty member) at all career stages participate in outreach for similar reasons, but that subtle shifts occur in their motivations It's generally not possible for a teacher at the as scientists become more senior and their priorities grade school level to have depth of knowledge in change. The scientists' responses reflect initial a range of science subjects. I think the value in motivating factors to become involved in outreach as outreach is that we can help teachers fill the gaps well as factors that encourage their continued in their own knowledge. (Researcher) participation. Some were motivated by specific misconceptions held by Rank Order of Motivating Factors - Graduate students the public: and researchers (reflecting back on their graduate school experiences) indicated that their top three motivating If you look at public polls, for example the factors were, in decreasing order of priority, "Desire to number of people who believe in young-Earth contribute," "Improve teaching skills," and "Fun or creationism, it is probably somewhere between enjoyment." The complete list of responses is shown in 1/3 and 1/4 of the people-which you have to Table 1, with the exception of a few write-in reasons such understand, it means they are practically as "interest in the project," "interest in teaching," rejecting everything that has ever been taught "community need," "curiosity," "[being a] female role about science. (Faculty member) model," and "convenience." The ranking of these factors was independent of students' gender. Similarly, faculty Other faculty members were more pragmatic, seeing members indicated that their top two motivations for outreach as a way to attract new scientists and new currently doing outreach were "Desire to contribute" and funding: "Fun or enjoyment." The more you can promote science, the better it is Desire to Contribute - The "desire to contribute" was the for the field, and the better it is for the sciences. … greatest motivating factor for all the scientists in this If you're educating people, you're also study, whether graduate students, researchers encouraging people to think positively about (reflecting back on their graduate days), or faculty funding science federally, which is a major members. Many scientists wanted to help others by [expense]-millions of dollars goes into this. sharing their knowledge and enthusiasm for science: Closer to home, you can think of outreach as being important for direct funding at various I pro vided something to groups un der- levels. Like the university needs a new facility to represented in science that they might not other - do this, or a new building, or a new technology wise be ex posed to. (Gradu ate student) center. How are they going to get it? [The State of] Colorado isn't going to give you the money, so It's a good feeling when you've helped someone they have to go to private sources, so they need to understand and they're excited and interested outreach. (Faculty member) in the material. (Graduate student) Some researchers and faculty members spoke of scientists' responsibility to the public. Faculty members, as highly educated individuals, felt a sense of

284 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 281-293 professional responsibility to share their knowledge for I would expect the Ph.D. students would be the betterment of society: interested in [outreach], especially if they are considering going into the teaching profession Outreach-when done correctly-is one of the most later on. I would certainly encourage it for those valuable contributions a professional scientist can that are going to go on to teaching positions, or make. (Researcher) intend to. I just think that they need to assure themselves that they like to interact with I do science outreach, whether I am required to or students, and that presenting their ideas in a way not. I think it is part of my responsibility as a that can be understood by somebody with less professional… I believe it is important. It's my education than them is really important. I wish I professional duty. I enjoy it. I think it benefits had had that experience when I was going to society. I think it makes people more aware of the school. (Faculty member) value of science. I think it get students ready to do more substantive things, and reason more Quite a few of them are thinking about careers in quantitatively than they would otherwise. education in some form. This is sort of a way to (Faculty member) get a little experience and see what is going on out in the world, to go and do a presentation-it is Fun or Enjoyment - Many of the scientists described practice teaching. (Faculty member) their positive outreach experiences with statements that we categorized as "Fun or enjoyment." The graduate Graduate students indicated that improving their students and researchers (reflecting back to their teaching skills was indeed important at that point in their graduate days) particularly enjoyed the activity of careers. Some students described gaining a range of teaching science: skills: It was a fabulous experience. Kids were bursting I learned how to think differently about my area with questions; they realized that science could of expertise-in order to teach something, you be exciting and fun; they got to meet an everyday often have to know how to explain it from many person (me) who does it on a day-to-day basis. different angles and with different techniques. I (Graduate student) gained many skills-public speaking, teaching, interpersonal-all worthwhile for many I enjoyed talking with school kids and adults occupations. (Graduate student) about science; it made my occupation seem more relevant. (Researcher) Others mentioned specific skills:

When they described their "fun" outreach experiences, Taught me quite a bit in preparing materials. the graduate students most often mentioned a positive (Graduate student) audience response. They described the students as "enthusiastic" or "interested" and described the More experience performing in front of an experience as "fun," "great," or "neat." Virtually all of the audience. (Graduate student) graduate students and some of the researchers described students' responses to their outreach efforts, rather than Provided me with insight into misconceptions in the teachers' or other adults' reactions. These scientists' the greater community. (Graduate student) response suggests that the K-12 students' reaction was more important than that of the teachers; a negative Most of the faculty assumed that graduate students who response by a teacher could be tempered by students' would become researchers did not need any more enthusiasm, but the reverse was not true. By contrast, teaching experience. Only one of the faculty members few faculty members discussed the students' response. saw outreach as a means of developing skills valuable to Instead, faculty members took greatest pleasure in a research scientist: teaching science. Their enjoyment was less about having fun being with children than it was about sharing They realize that if they are going to go anywhere knowledge. Many scientists also found the experience that they need to develop those communication personally rewarding in other ways, describing gains in skills as well as a basic science background. recognition and increased confidence. (Faculty member) Improve Teaching Skills - Both graduate students and To summarize, we found that the scientists in our study, researchers (reflecting back to their graduate days) who participated in outreach before a paradigm shift valued "developing a deeper understanding" of their toward "the engaged institution" occurred, were subject area by having to explain the fundamentals of involved in K-12 outreach for primarily intrinsic reasons, their field to a general audience. They also valued the including a personal desire to contribute. They wanted to opportunity to improve their teaching skills, including help improve students' and teachers' scientific learning how to better share their knowledge with knowledge and skills and to foster their interest in people of differing abilities and interests. Faculty science. Another primary motivating factor was that the members did not rate "improving teaching skills" as an scientists, especially the graduate students and scientific important motivator for themselves. Nevertheless, they researchers, had fun and enjoyed interacting with perceived it as important for graduate students who students, while faculty members enjoyed imparting their were going into teaching careers: knowledge. The third factor that motivated graduate students and scientific researchers was the opportunity

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 285 Graduate Students1 Faculty Members Top barriers: Top barriers: 1. Lack of time 1. Lack of time 2. Lack of information about outreach opportunities 2. Lack of information about outreach opportunities 3. Lack of support from advisor or department 3. Lack of value to the department Less important barriers: Less important barriers: 4. Funding 4. Lack of interest 5. Lack of value of outreach2 5. Lack of support for outreach 6. Lack of interest2 6. Not feeling comfortable during outreach 7. Not feeling comfortable during outreach2 7. Funding

Table 2. Barriers to participation in outreach (in order of decreasing importance). 1Includes researchers reflecting back upon their graduate experience. 2For graduate students, the last two items were tied for least important. For researchers reflecting back, "not feeling comfortable" was tied for second to last. to improve their own teaching and communication skills, Highly important, but takes a back seat to a more instrumental and less intrinsic factor. research, thesis, and class deadlines. (Graduate student) FACTORS THAT HINDER SCIENTISTS' PARTICIPATION Faculty members noted that graduate students' shortage of time for outreach is affected by financial obligations: The data presented in this section indicate that scientists at all career stages face similar barriers to participating in They have pretty busy schedules. Often they are outreach, with subtle differences related to job role. being paid to do some research tasks or teaching tasks. They've got their own research thesis to Rank Order of Hindering Factors - Graduate students do... They don't necessarily have a couple of who participated in outreach, and researchers reflecting hours to prepare and give a lecture. (Faculty on their graduate school experiences, reported that the member) primary factors that prevented their involvement were (in decreasing order of priority) "Lack of time," "Lack of With regard to their own involvement in outreach, information about outreach opportunities," and "Lack of faculty members also experienced time constraints as a support from advisor or department." The complete list complex question of priorities: of responses is shown in Table 2, with the exception of a few write-in reasons: "poor organization," "lack of People do [outreach] as much as they can…There opportunities," "scheduling," "already teaching" and is a real time limitation. If we don't get funding financial concerns." The faculty members identified the we lose our jobs. So if you had to raise half a same top two barriers to participation in outreach: "Lack million dollars a year from federal or private of time" and "Lack of information about outreach sources by writing twenty-five to fifty-page opportunities." Similar to the other scientists, the third grants, each one of which takes a month and a most limiting factor for them was "Lack of value to the half to write, how much time would you have to department." A few faculty members wrote in additional spend an afternoon here or there doing other reasons, including: "had no idea it was useful," "lack of things? (Faculty member) high school student interest," and "these activities are secondary to work." You've only got a certain amount of time, so if we're spending a lot of time at K-12, it means Lack of Time - Time constraints were the unanimous we're not putting that time into the primary impediment to scientists' involvement in undergraduates and the graduates-I don't think outreach. Participants' availability to do outreach was people are honest about this particular issue, limited by their other priorities, which were given because if you're going to put a lot of effort into precedence. All scientists felt it would be easier to outreach then someone is going to suffer. Either participate in outreach if the time commitment was your own research is going to suffer, or your limited and/or flexible. In addition, the scientists, undergraduate teaching is going to suffer, or especially faculty members, stressed the importance of your graduate program is going to suffer. having an outreach coordinator to set up and coordinate Assuming that you're not going to start working outreach opportunities. longer hours. (Faculty member) Time constraints were particularly apparent when students were asked about the value of outreach. Many Lack of Information about Outreach Opportunities - responses of the graduate students involved in outreach All scientists stated that they lacked information about fell into what we categorized as "Important, but…:" outreach opportunities: I work a lot on my own research project, which is Opportunities need to be made more apparent. I necessary because that's why I'm here - to do think most grad students don't know what's research and learn and get my degree. So time not possible-more outreach infrastructure might help doing that is time I'll need to spend in the end. facilitate this. (Graduate student) (Graduate student) However, all the chemistry and geology graduate students had been included for some time on an e-mail

286 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 281-293 listserve, through which they were sent e-mail messages at least once per month notifying them of a variety of Faculty members also pointed out the importance of outreach opportunities. Many of these students also having the university acknowledge outreach work in the worked within a research institute at the university that tenure process. In keeping with this value system, faculty sent e-mail notices about outreach opportunities several members at all career stages were unanimous in their times each semester; the opportunities were also listed belief that extensive outreach involvement was generally on a web site. The students' responses suggest that most not possible or appropriate for untenured faculty: of these students did not read or remember those notices. Some students read the notices but wanted more You don't get tenure by having done some information before becoming involved in an outreach outreach. You get tenure for being an excellent program: teacher, and doing good research. I don't think we should really change that. When people get a I've seen the e-mails, but I wasn't sure what I'd be little further in their career… then one can take getting into. (Graduate student) another look at what we are doing. (Faculty member) Sometimes I get an email saying mentors are wanted, but the goals, focus, purpose of the Several faculty members described receiving implicit program are omitted (and these can vary messages that they should become more involved in drastically from program to program) - so I am outreach, which they felt were unrealistic in the face of unwilling to commit my time and energies to their time constraints: helping out. (Graduate student) The faculty are being asked to do more and more Interestingly, these students did not respond by and more, and not only are we now expected to requesting more information about the program; teach undergraduates and graduates, but there instead, if the information was inadequate, they simply seems to be a growing expectation that we would did not pursue the opportunity any further. It is evident now start to give more and more outreach and that many scientists will not pursue an opportunity, even this is the "in" political thing.... (Faculty member) if it looks interesting, if it requires additional effort on their behalf. We suggest that they may also be fearful of In contrast, others described receiving explicit messages making a larger commitment than desired. Instead, about the importance of outreach, particularly through scientists are more willing to do outreach if the activities their funding agencies: are clearly defined and coordinated by others: We get funded from the National Science It would be nice to have a central coordinated Foundation and also from the Office of Naval effort so that graduate students had an idea of Research. Mainly NSF, and they judge this what was needed. If I knew that a particular class [outreach] to be fairly important. (Faculty or teacher had requested outreach involvement, I member) would be more likely to participate. (Graduate student) NASA has a very strong outreach program. They really care about it. They encourage…interaction, Outreach activities should come to scientists this kind of service, they kind of expect it. instead of scientists looking for them....It is very (Faculty member) important for scientists to be asked directly by name to partake in outreach activities. Our study was carried out during a time when the (Researcher) environment for outreach was changing rapidly at research universities, and research scientists were If somebody like CIRES is organizing programs becoming increasingly aware of new initiatives to that bring in the clientele, I think our faculty and promote outreach. None of our faculty respondents had grad students would be glad to participate. But I yet encountered a situation in which their research think we are a small department that can't really funding, or that of a colleague, had depended upon their take on those kinds of challenges. (Faculty participation in an outreach program. Since that time, member) both NSF and NASA (one or both of which provided funding to all the faculty respondents) have changed Lack of Value to the Department - Many faculty their merit review criteria for research proposals to members identified their primary job responsibilities as explicitly include outreach (NSF 2002; NSF 2001; NSF research and postsecondary teaching. They felt that 1997; NASA, 1996). outreach participation hindered their ability to fulfill those responsibilities and might be an ineffective use of Lack of Support from Advisors or Department - their skills and time, and that it was not a valid use of Several students, and researchers reflecting back upon their research funding: their graduate school experiences, mentioned that the lack of support from their department or advisor It doesn't make money, which is what a research negatively affected their participation in science university is all about. Finding the time to do it is outreach. To some, a lack of explicit encouragement or very difficult. You are paid to teach and number support indicated that their advisors themselves simply one you are paid to do research, because that is did not value outreach or teaching: what brings in money. Outreach programs don't do anything for you-service doesn't get you a raise, basically. (Faculty member)

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 287 Many more students would participate if their students here know much about it. (Faculty advisors made it known they were supportive or member) were involved themselves. (Graduate student) This lack of discussion about outreach led the graduate Departmental attitude towards grad students students to believe that there was a lack of interest and doing outreach is very important. Here I think it's involvement in outreach by the faculty. Interestingly, it perceived as a "waste of time" for grad students, also led faculty to believe the same about graduate not a duty to the community, or a fun students. Several faculty members felt that they valued departmental group activity, or a potential plus outreach more than did their graduate students, and that on the job market.…Feeling that this gets me some students resisted participation: perceived as being on the all-teaching-no-research track, i.e. being more Their minds are filled with going to class, getting interested in education than research, when in homework done, and then doing all of the reality both are interesting to me. (Graduate research they have to do here, and they are pretty student) stressed out. They are not looking for something extra.… Most of them don't have a lot of extra Other students believed that their advisors time, or probably not the inclination…unless I wanted them to devote their time to research required it. Which I haven't done. (Faculty instead of other activities: member) [I'm] having to do outreach work on the sly without advisor's consent. (Researcher) Not interested. There are these people who really in the end would rather be in the lab doing Not much support from my advisor-I wouldn't science and not out trying to communicate what expect him to because he wants me to work on my they do, or hear about other people's situations or research project, which is understandable. problems. That is just a difference in personality. (Graduate student) (Faculty member) The faculty members believed that their students had In summary, our study found that time constraints more important priorities than outreach, such as due to scientists having other, higher, priorities are the completing their research and other degree greatest barrier to participation in outreach. Scientists are requirements. The faculty members were pessimistic concerned with taking too much time away from about extensive involvement in outreach by graduate research obligations, especially if their efforts are spent students. Their primary criterion for suitable outreach coordinating outreach efforts rather than sharing their activities for graduate students was a limited time expertise. Scientists preferred to have flexible and commitment. For example, judging science fairs was limited time commitments in their outreach obligations. frequently mentioned as an appropriate outreach The second major impediment was the scientists' need activity for graduate students; other activities included for specific information about potential outreach short presentations for K-12 students, a field trip, a activities, of the type that outreach coordinators could lecture, or mentoring high school students in science provide. The third greatest barrier for faculty was the projects. One faculty member described this conflict in inadequate value placed on outreach efforts by their detail: colleagues and department, including the lack of recognition and rewards, especially in the tenure A graduate student has to be effective and they process. Graduate students also reported, as their have to take courses. Graduate courses, in greatest barrier, a lack of support from their advisor or general, in the sciences are pretty tough, and they department. Lack of communication led both faculty and have to put in time for research. If they do judge a graduate students to believe the other group did not science fair or visit a high school on occasion value outreach, even though a rough estimate based that's one thing, and obviously I'm very much for upon this study suggests that at least 20% of the scientists that. But if they take on another [outreach] job, at this university do outreach. which is mentally very important and occupies them a lot, then I don't think it is a good POST-OUTREACH PERSPECTIVES idea....And that is like doing two Ph.D. theses in parallel. I see how much emotional time and Graduate students and researchers in our study were thinking time it takes, on my part. I'm in a stage in asked whether their outlook on outreach changed as a my career where I think I can do that. But not result of their experiences. Half of the scientists reported graduate students. (Faculty member) no change, having apparently had realistic expectations about outreach: Very few of the faculty members explicitly discussed the subject of outreach with their students. Although they I knew from the beginning that it would be generally did not explicitly discourage their graduate time-consuming, yet fun and rewarding. students from participating in outreach programs, most (Researcher) never discussed the topic with their students at all: One-third reported a positive change: I think we probably don't do a very good job in that area. I don't think the graduate students are Kids usually were much more inquisitive and less really very well informed about any outreach that cynical than I had expected. We see so many goes on here unless …their advisor…is doing negative media images about "kids these days" some outreach. By and large I don't think the

288 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 281-293 that it's easy to forget that kids are still kids. presentations, both on and off campus, or tutoring K-12 (Graduate student) students. Other institutions have also reported that tutoring is the most common type of on-campus Almost all of my outreach activities have been outreach (Campus Compact, 2003). Faculty members rewarding and make me feel that studying spent about half as much time as graduate students on science is a valuable career. It helped me to get outreach activities, giving presentations, both on and off more excited about my own research. campus, or acting as a resource for teachers. Researchers (Researcher) spent most of their time giving presentations away from work although they also commonly mentored students A few scientists (10%) reported a negative change in their and teachers, helped with teacher professional perspectives toward outreach. Factors that left a negative development or acted as a school resource. impression included classroom management problems, We also found gender differences in outreach poor audience responses, a lack of necessary skills to do participation. Both female graduate students and outreach well, and logistical, organizational, or scientific researchers were involved in outreach at a higher rate problems during the activity: than their male counterparts, as other research has found (Surdyk and Diddams, 1999). Abes and colleagues (2002) The kids weren't really interested in more than also found a gender difference among faculty involved in the demos. I also have a hard time keeping them service learning, where more women than men are in line. (Graduate student) involved in service learning, which contrasted with what we learned with our limited sample of faculty members. I felt that the teachers inviting us to participate in In another study that had somewhat different findings outreach had much less direction and advice to than ours, community and science organizations give than I expected. They seemed to have no appeared to be effective in recruiting female graduate clear idea of what they wanted me to accomplish, and undergraduate students, but completely ineffective which made it more difficult for me to tailor my in recruiting male students (Gwynne, 1989). efforts to their classroom. (Researcher) Almost two-thirds of the scientists in our study became involved in outreach through an institution- Too many kids per graduate student. (Graduate based outreach coordinator or a colleague or professor. student) Similarly, Abes and colleagues (2002) found that faculty were successfully encouraged into service learning via Graduate students also mentioned the negative another faculty member, community member, or effect of inadequate recognition for their time and student. Other research has reported personal contact effort: between the recruiter and the prospective volunteer as the most influential recruitment strategy (Davis, 2000; The presenters were not treated as if we were Green et al., 1984). Both our study and Wier's (1991) contributing anything at all. Some respect for the found that scientists with children were also recruited to work that went into our effort would have been help as scientist-parents in their children's schools. The appreciated. (Graduate student) least useful recruiting strategy involved anonymous tactics, as other research has also found (Wier, 1991). In summary, for almost all respondents, the outreach experience either met the scientists' expectations or Factors that Motivate Scientists' Participation - The positively impressed them. Only 10% of scientists greatest motivating factor for the scientists in our study, viewed their outreach experience negatively. Scientists like the altruistic participants studied by Etzkowitz and are not skilled in classroom management (for the most Alonzo (1995), was a desire to contribute. This part), and several scientists cited having to deal with motivation fits Holland's (1999) description of "early unruly students as a primary problem in doing outreach. adopters"-that is, faculty who became involved in Perhaps these challenges, along with organizational and outreach for primarily intrinsic reasons during the time logistical issues, could have been reduced with training when their universities regard research duties as and support, such as from an outreach coordinator, or paramount. Similar to the scientists in Wier's (1991) with greater clarification of the teacher's role in study, our participants wanted to help encourage managing the classroom. students' and teachers' scientific knowledge and skills and interest in science as well as help increase science DISCUSSION literacy, correct misconceptions about science, and contribute to the public's view of the value of publicly Our study makes important contributions to the small funded science. As highly educated individuals, our body of literature pertaining to science and outreach, and scientists felt a social responsibility to share their provides valuable information for scientists, educators, knowledge for the betterment of society, as research on coordinators, and agencies involved in or concerned outreach and service learning has shown (Holland, 1999; with outreach. Hammond, 1994). The scientists also wanted to know if their efforts Involvement in Outreach - Our results, based on were effective in increasing student knowledge and scientists' outreach activities prior to the "broader improving student attitudes toward science. This result impact" movement, show both career stage and role is congruent with other science faculty members' differences in scientists' participation in outreach. motivations for doing outreach (Wier, 1991). Osguthorpe Among graduate students, those toward the end of their and Patterson (1998) note that scientist participants need doctoral education were the most likely to participate in to know they are making a difference and to have their outreach. Graduate students spent about five hours per contributions valued. For example, an evaluation of a month in outreach activities, typically giving scientific Rockefeller University outreach program found that

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 289 scientists valued feedback from teachers indicating that hours/quarter. This change was a response to student the high school students were operating above concerns that the program would take time away from expectations (Kaiser, 1996). Non-science faculty involved research, teaching, and coursework responsibilities in outreach and service learning also report being more (Waldman et al., 1996). Scientists are concerned with motivated to participate in outreach if their efforts taking too much time away from research obligations facilitate student learning (Abes et al., 2002; Holland, (Alper, 1994; Wier, 1991), especially if their efforts are 1999; Hammond, 1994). spent coordinating outreach efforts rather than sharing The second strongest motivating factor we found their expertise. Osguthorpe and Patterson (1998) was the fun and enjoyment experienced by the scientists suggest, based on years of experience with building during their outreach activities, which reinforced their school-university partnerships, that much more time and desire to continue to participate, as others have also effort needs to be spent on the day-to-day practicalities of found (Falk and Drayton, 1997; Wier, 1991). The organizing and running a program. As Milliman (1996) enjoyment experienced by faculty members took the points out, "Unless educational outreach is approached form of pleasure in sharing knowledge. In contrast, most in a businesslike manner, it runs the risk of becoming an graduate students and researchers particularly enjoyed almost endless time sink for faculty and staff…" the positive responses of K-12 students to their activities. The second major impediment our study found was Furthermore, as some of our researchers and those in the scientists' need for specific information about other studies have indicated, working with broader potential outreach activities, of the type that outreach scientific topics and having a direct impact on the "real coordinators could provide. Information about outreach world" (i.e., real children and teachers) was an opportunities often did not clearly define the invigorating and refreshing experience for scientists commitment required. Scientists were less likely to do (Falk and Drayton, 1997; Wier, 1991). outreach if they had to seek out opportunities or The third most common motivation to participate in information to clarify the expected commitment. This outreach was, for graduate students and researchers, the finding has been corroborated by other studies on chance to improve their teaching and communication outreach and service learning (Abes et al., 2002; Holland, skills, which others have also reported (Weaver et al., 1999; Wier, 1993). Similarly, one of the major themes 2000; Jacobson and McDuff, 1998; Bruce et al., 1997; Falk learned from a survey of University of Michigan and Drayton, 1997; Milliman, 1996). For example, outreach programs was the importance of organization, undergraduate physics majors strengthened their own which included paid support staff (i.e., outreach content knowledge and found additional uses for their coordinators), defined outreach goals, and knowledge (Bruce et al., 1997). Faculty members could communication among all participants (LaSavoge et al., also benefit from outreach in this way, if they observe 1998). pedagogical methods such as inquiry-based learning in The third greatest barrier for the scientists in our the classroom and learn how to apply these methods in study was the inadequate value placed on outreach their own courses (Alper, 1994). Having the opportunity efforts by their advisors, colleagues, and departments. to enhance these skills is more of an external, Both graduate students and faculty members believed non-altruistic, motivator. Research has shown the the other group did not value outreach, as they never promise of such benefit to be important in recruiting explicitly discussed the topic of outreach, even though volunteers, recommending the experience to others, and both were actively involved in outreach. Furthermore, an overall positive evaluation of the experience (Green et faculty members agreed that outreach could be a al., 1984). beneficial experience for graduate students interested in teaching and academia, as long as it did not interfere Factors that Hinder Scientists' Participation - Our with the students' progress toward their degrees. study, like several others, shows time constraints to be Graduate students and faculty also perceived that the greatest barrier to participation in outreach and their science departments placed greater value on service learning (Abes et al., 2002; Campus Compact, research. Faculty members reported that their 2002; Hammond, 1994; Holland, 1999). These time involvement in outreach did not benefit them with constraints, however, are defined relative to other, more regard to tenure or pay, which is well-documented as important, priorities. Graduate students' time was problematic (Church et al., 2003; Amey et al., 2002; limited by their more pressing responsibilities of classes, Campus Compact, 2002; Wise et al., 2002; Coor, 1999; teaching or research assistantships or other outside jobs, Holland, 1999; Keener, 1999; McGrath, 1999; Ray, 1999; and their own research. Similarly, faculty members had Votruba, 1996; Alper, 1994; Hammond, 1994; McCallum, little time available because they saw their highest 1994; Diffily, 1989). However, as both our study and priorities as teaching university students, conducting other research has found, tenured faculty are much less their own research, and acquiring funding. concerned about these negative perceptions than those Scientists in our study preferred to have flexible and without tenure (Abes et al., 2002). Today, only 39% of limited time commitments in their outreach obligations. Campus Compacts' member institutions recognize A Northwestern University project (CO-VIS) also found faculty with service awards, and only 27% consider that scientists needed flexibility in scheduling outreach. service learning in tenure and promotion (Campus When adequate structure was created for their email and Compact, 2003), although this is a significant increase computer-based mentoring program, hundreds of compared to recent years. It is common that "those scientists were recruited to participate (O'Neil and individuals who participated in activities for off-campus Gomez, 1996). Likewise, a chemistry department publics often found that such activities were not valued outreach project at the University of California, Irvine, by their colleagues at promotion and tenure time. Such increased the number of volunteer graduate students by work was considered 'overload' for which one should more than an order of magnitude after reorganizing the rightfully be rewarded with 'overload pay' instead of program to include coordinators to do all administrative career advancement" (Keener, 1999). It is not surprising and prep work, so that volunteers only had to give 3-4 that faculty involved in outreach also find themselves

290 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 281-293 denied merit raises and viewed as "frittering away time" commitment of 2-5 hours per month per scientist. (Alper, 1994). While educational leaders argue that Potential participants could be provided with a list of outreach is scholarly work that is interrelated with personal and professional benefits they may gain from research and teaching (Church et al., 2003; Rice, 2003; participating in the outreach activity, such as meeting Boyer, 1996; Fear and Sandmann, 1995; McCallum, 1994), "broader impact" goals of funding agencies, improving faculty members have difficulty understanding how their own teaching and communication skills, and "outreach as scholarship" applies to their academic work motivating students' interest in science. Whenever (Church et al., 2003). Faculty reward structures have not possible, the outreach coordinator could personally yet changed to match the goal of greater engagement and invite faculty and students to participate in appropriate the cultural norm of perceiving outreach as outreach activities and provide a brief training on their non-scholarly, overload work continues to affect the responsibilities. Because word of mouth is such a large recruitment of faculty into outreach activities (Amey et factor in scientist recruitment, maintaining contact with al., 2002). However, if funding agencies required faculty participating scientists may provide outreach programs to conduct outreach, participants in our study viewed with a source to tap for other scientists. their involvement in outreach as appropriate. Beyond these changes that would directly improve the experience for participating scientists, systemic Post-Outreach Perspectives - Almost all of the changes toward the "engaged institution" would be scientists in our study valued their outreach experience. required. Institutions would have to embrace the third Similarly, Herwitz and Guerra (1996) found that mission of universities: "service." Efforts toward this university science students were pleasantly surprised at would include creating and supporting the outreach how much they gained from their experience, including coordinator role and including the topic in regular becoming more engaged in the subject matter and departmental forums for planning. Institutions would valuing their role in interacting with young students. In need to grapple with the complex topic of recognition another study, over half of the scientists who had and rewards for the involvement of both their staff and partnered with teachers were also surprised at the students in outreach. Coupled with this, they would program's success (Wier, 1991). Only a few of our have to tackle the difficult topic of managing workload scientists viewed their outreach experience negatively, so that outreach is not overload work, but is integrated due to logistical, organizational or classroom into existing teaching, research, and management management problems, or a lack of outreach skills. Other responsibilities. These types of broader change would studies have also found that some faculty members lack likely encourage additional scientists to participate in confidence with, or knowledge of, the skills and outreach. techniques of outreach and service (Abes et al., 2002; To validate this type of work, the outcomes of Campus Compact, 2002; Holland, 1999). It is argued that outreach on K-12 students and teachers and other outreach coordinators can help provide scientists with beneficiaries would need to be evaluated systematically. information about what to expect in the classroom (see The results could be used to recruit more scientists and to for example, Eckelmeyer, 1994; Kirwan, 1994). appropriately recognize and reward those already involved as well as help with program planning and CONCLUSIONS refinement (Otterbourg 1990). Furthermore, positive evaluations could enhance the prestige of the program, Our study examined scientists' involvement in outreach participants, and supporting institution and lead to a to K-12 schools and the general public and the factors change in how outreach is viewed as well as to increased that motivate or deter their participation. Our findings institutional legitimacy and support (Cleary and Benson will be of particular value to researchers who seek to 1998). more effectively meet the new "broader impact" Future research on scientists' involvement in requirements of public funding agencies. Our results will outreach would benefit from expanding this study to also be useful to outreach coordinators, educators, and include educational institutions of varying size and funding agencies and will benefit the national effort to mission. Furthermore, other scientists, such as create the "engaged institution." We have also made researchers in national labs, research institutes, and several contributions to the literature by examining private industry form a large, potentially untapped graduate students', researcher scientists', and faculty resource about which even less is known. Because members' involvement in K-12 and public outreach. scientists are concerned with time constraints and Looking to the future, scientists' participation in competing priorities that limit their participation in outreach could be increased by considering the factors outreach, it would be interesting to compare their that motivate or impede their involvement. At a most expectations about the outreach time commitment with basic level, outreach activities could be designed to their actual experiences. Scientists are also concerned transcend scientists' time constraints due to conflicting with making a contribution to society, so it would be priorities. As science outreach programs at the valuable to learn if their efforts are well spent and have a University of California at Irvine (Waldman et al., 1996) positive effect on student learning (Abes et al., 2002; and Northwestern University (O'Neil and Gomez, 1996) Holland, 1999; Osguthorpe and Patterson, 1998; Kaiser, have learned, many more scientists volunteered once 1996; Hammond, 1994; Wier, 1991; Otterbourg, 1990). As their outreach efforts could be focused on science while the "broader impact" and "engaged institution" other people managed the administrative aspects of movements grow, scientists' motivations for outreach. Activities could be identified and organized by participation in outreach will shift to be more externally a central outreach coordinator who would could clearly motivated, including factors such as public or private define and announce the opportunities, including funding opportunities, incentives or rewards, program goals, activities, time commitment required, observation of respected colleagues or institutions, skills needed, and other specific information. Outreach evidence of positive impact on academic prestige, and activities could be designed that require a limited time affect on the public image of the institution (Holland,

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 291 1999). These different motivating factors will offer marking Engaged Institutions", (accessed March 18, important new avenues for study, as will the scientists' 2004). experiences with outreach under these new Cleary, C., and Benson, D., 1998, The service integration circumstances. project: institutionalizing university service learning, Journal of Experiential Education, v. 21, p. REFERENCES 124-129. Colorado, U. of, 2003, Chancellor's leadership RAP Abes, E., Jackson, G., and Jones, S., 2002, Factors that service initiative and the ethnic living and learning motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning, community, http://www.colorado.edu/chancel- Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, v. 9, lorslrap/lcglossary.html (accessed March 18, 2004). p. 5-17. Colwell, R., and Kelly, E., 1999, Science learning, science Alberts, B., 1991, Elementary science education in the United opportunity, Science, v. 286, p. 237. States: How scientists can help, Current Biology, v. 1, p. Coor, L., 1999, Engagement in a major metropolitan 339-341. research university, Journal of Public Service & Alberts, B., 1993, Why science education partnerships? Outreach, v. 4, p. 12-16. Science Education Partnerships, Manual for Scientists Davis, K., 2000, Factors Influencing the Recruiting and and K-12 Teachers, edited by A. Sussman, p. 1-5, San Retaining of Volunteers in Community Francisco, CA, University of California. Organizations, ED450243, Oklahoma. Alper, J., 1994, Scientists return to the elementary-school Delamont, S., 1992, Fieldwork in Educational Settings: classroom, Science, v. 264, p. 768-769. Methods, Pitfalls, and Perspectives, Washington, Amey, M., Brown, D., and Sandmann, L., 2002, A D.C., Falmer Press. multidisciplinary collaborative approach to aDiffily, A., 1989, Making the ideal real, Currents, v. 15, p. university-community partnership: lessons learned, 6-13. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Driscoll, A., 2000, Studying faculty and service-learning: Engagement, v. 7, p. 19-26. directions for inquiry and development, Michigan Bower, J., 1996, Scientists and science education reform: Journal of Community Service Learning Special myths, methods, and madness. Issues in Science and Issue, p. 35-41. Technology XII, http://www.utdallas.edu/ Dyer, T., 1999, Retrospect and prospect: understanding research/issues/Bowerw.html (accessed April 22, the American outreach university, Journal of Public 2004). Service & Outreach, v. 4, p. 52-64. Boyatzis, R., 1998, Transforming Qualitative Eckelmeyer, K., 1994, Sandia scientists enhancing K-12 Information: Thematic Analysis and Code education, Scientists, Educators, and National Development, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Standards: Action at the Local Level, Research Publications. Triangle Park, NC, Sigma Xi Forum Proceedings. Boyer, E., 1996, The scholarship of engagement, Journal Etzkowitz, H., and Alonzo, J., 1995, The extensible of Public Service & Outreach, v, 1, p. 11-20. research group: high school students and teachers in Bruce, B., Bruce, S., Conrad, R., and Huang, H., 1997, the laboratory, A co-existive evaluation of the University science students as curriculum planners, outreach program at Rockefeller University, teachers and role models in elementary school Evaluation Report for the Rockefeller University classrooms, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education Outreach Program (see v. 34, p. 69-88. http://www.rockefeller.edu/outreach/). Bybee, R. and Morrow, C., 1998, Improving science Eyler, J., 2000, What do we most need to know about the education: the role of scientists, Newsletter on the impact of service-learning on student learning? Forum on Education of the American Physical Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Society, http://www.spacescience.org/Education Special Issue, p. 11-17. /ResourcesForScientists/Workshops/Four-Day/Re Falk, J., and Drayton, B., 1997, Dynamics of the sources/Articles/1.html (accessed April 22, 2004). Relationships between Science Teachers and Byrne, J., 1998, Outreach, engagement, and the changing Scientists in an Innovative Mentorship culture of the university, Journal of Public Service & Collaboration, Annual Meeting of the American Outreach, v. 3, p. 3-8. Educational Research Association, March 1997, Campus Compact, 2002, Service statistics: highlights of Chicago, IL. Campus Compact's annual membership survey, Fear, F., and Sandmann, L., 1995, Unpacking the service Campus Compact, http://www.compact.org/ category: Reconceptualizing university outreach for newscc/2002_Statistics.pdf (accessed March 18, the 21st century, Continuing Higher Education 2004). Review, v. 59, p. 110-122. Campus Compact, 2003, Service statistics: highlights of Giles Jr., D. ,and Eyler, J., 1998, A service learning Campus Compact's annual membership survey, research agenda for the next five years, New Campus Compact, http://www.compact.org Directions for Teaching and Learning 1998, v. 73, p. /newscc/2003_Statistics.pdf (accessed July 15, 65-72. 2004). Green, S., Aarons, A., and Cross, R., 1984, Volunteer Christian, C., 2003, Scientists' role in educational content motivation and its relationship to satisfaction and development, Journal of Science Education and future volunteering, Annual Convention of the Technology, v. 12, p. 31-37. American Psychological Association, August 24-28, Church, R., Zimmerman, D., Bargerstock, B., and Toronto, Ontario. Kenney, P., 2003, Measuring scholarly outreach at Gwynne, M., 1989, A place for national service in higher Michigan State University, http://www. education, Educational Record, v. 70, p. 66-70. scholarshipofengagement.org/, under "Bench- Hammond, C., 1994, Integrating service and academic study: faculty motivation and satisfaction in

292 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 281-293 Michigan higher education, Michigan Journal of O'Neil, D., and Gomez, L., 1996, Online mentors: Community Service Learning, v. 1, p. 21-28. experimenting in science class, Educational Herwitz, S., and Guerra, M., 1996, Perspectives, partnerships, Leadership, v. 54, p. 39-42. and values in science education: A University and Public Osguthorpe, R. and Patterson, R., 1998, Balancing the Elementary School Collaboration, Science Education, v. Tensions of Change: Eight Keys to Collaborative 80, p. 21-34. Educational Renewal, Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Holland, B., 1999, Factors and strategies that influence Press. faculty involvement in public service, Journal of Public Otterbourg, S., 1990, Partnerships in education: Service & Outreach, v. 4, p. 37-43. measuring their success, Annual Meeting of the Jacobson, S., and McDuff, M., 1998, Training idiot savants: American Educational Research Association, The lack of human dimensions in conservation biology, Boston, MA. Conservation Biology, v. 12, p. 263-267. Ray, E., 1999, Outreach, engagement will keep academia Kaiser, B., 1996, Rockefeller University's science outreach, relevant to twenty-first century societies, Journal of Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, v. 16, p. Public Service & Outreach, v. 4, p. 21-27. 171-175. Rice, R., 2003, Rethinking scholarship and engagement: Keener, M., 1999, Strengthening institutional the struggle for new meanings, Campus Compact engagement: Addressing faculty issues to facilitate Reader: Service Learning and Civic Education, change, Journal of Public Service & Outreach, v. 4, p. http://www.compact.org/publication/Reader/Fal 29-36. l_2003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2004) Kezar, A., 2000, External constituencies, outreach, and Rogers, C., 1981, Science information for the public: the public relations, ERIC Trends, 1999-2000, role of scientific societies, Science, Technology, and Washington D.C., ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Human Values, v. 6, p. 36-40. Education. Spradley, J., 1980, Participant Observation, New York, Kirwan, G., 1994, Scientist volunteers: doing science with Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. children, Scientists, Educators, and National Surdyk, L., and Diddams, M., 1999, Doing well by doing Standards: Action at the Local Level, Research good: career attainment and volunteerism, Journal of Triangle Park, NC, Sigma Xi Forum Proceedings. Volunteer Administration, v. 17, p. 11-24. LaSavoge, J., Sutton, J., and Toth, M., 1998, Progress Votruba, J., 1996, Strengthening the university's report, January 1997-February 1998, K-12 Education alignment with society: challenges and strategies, Outreach Program, Center for Ultrafast Optical Journal of Public Service & Outreach, v. 1, p. 29-36. Science and Southeastern Michigan Math-Science Waldman, A., Schechinger, L. and Nowick, J., 1996, A Learning Coalition, http://reachoutmichigan.org coordinated chemistry outreach program for /report98/summary.html (accessed April 20, 2004) thousands of high school students, Journal of McCallum, C., 1994, The bottom line: Broadening the Chemical Education, v. 73, p. 762-764. faculty reward system, Teachers College Record, v. Weaver, A., Buhr, S., and Spetzler, H., 2000, Getting 95, p. 332-336. involved in K-12 outreach: professional McGrath, C., 1999, Engagement and the twenty-first development strategies for research scientists, century university, Journal of Public Service & American Meteorological Society Meeting, January Outreach, v. 4, p. 3-7. 2000, Long Beach, CA. Milliman, J., 1996, Integrating research and education Wier, E., 1991, Scientists and elementary teachers: with public outreach at coastal laboratories, partners in science teaching, Annual Meeting of the Biological Bulletin, v. 190, p. 278-285. National Association for Research in Science NASA, 1996, Implementing the Office of Space Science Teaching, April 7-10, Lake Geneva, WI. Education, Public Outreach Strategy, http:// Wier, E., 1993, Scientist and teacher partnerships in spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/edu/imp_pla elementary schools, Annual Meeting of the National n.htm (accessed April 27, 2004). Association for Research in Science Teaching, April NSF, 1997, Geoscience Education: A Recommended 1993, Atlanta, GA. Strategy, NSF publication #97-171, http://www.nsf. Wise, G., Retzleff, D. and Reilly, K., 2002, Adapting gov/pubs/1997/nsf97171/nsf97171.htm (accessed "scholarship reconsidered" and "scholarship April 27, 2004) assessed" to evaluate University of Wisconsin NSF, 2001, Working Group on Implementation of extension outreach faculty for tenure and Review Criterion #2, Office of Polar Programs promotion, Journal of Higher Education Outreach Advisory Committee, http://www.nsf.gov/od/ and Engagement, v. 7, p. 5-18. opp/opp_advisory/oaccrit2.htm (accessed January 29, 2004). NSF, 2002, "Dear Colleague" letter from Arthus B. Ellis, NSF publication #02-161, http://www. nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02161.htm (accessed January 29, 2004)

Andrews et al. - Scientists and Public Outreach 293 Practical, creative, and innovative ideas for teaching geoscience

Name (print or type) Phone Mailing Address Fax

City State Country Postal Code Individual Subscription & Membership Rates (US Funds) E-mail Regular USA $35 ___ College/University Professor at Outside USA $47 ___ Pre-College Teacher at Student* USA $20 ___ Student* outside USA $32 ___ Other at Retired NAGT member $30 ___ Library Subscriptions Checks (US funds only) are payable to National Association of Geoscience Regular USA $75 ___ Teachers. Outside USA $87 ___ Mail to: NAGT, 31 Crestview Dr., Napa, CA 94558 USA ____New ____Renewal

Please charge my credit card for my membership fees Visa MC Credit Card # Exp. Date Signature

The membership year runs from January through December, and members receive 5 issues of JGE per year. Subscrip- tions received after June 1 will begin receiving the Journal in January of the following year. Back issues are available for $15 each ($18 foreign).

*To qualify for student rate, indicate status below, and obtain verification from an NAGT member. Undergraduate Graduate Signature of NAGT member School National Association of Geoscience Teachers