Wading in the Research Stream: Science Beyond the Classroom

“I shall never be content until the beneficent influence of the

University reaches every home in the state.”

-Charles Van Hise, UW President, 1904(The “Wisconsin Idea”)

Goals for Student Engagement

• Engage students in the scientific process

• Invest students in their community

• Have students collect real, useful data

• Develop a sense of curiosity about the natural world

• Develop an understanding of the nature of science

Shift to Active Learning: How to achieve the goals

• Goal 1: Engage students in the scientific process– Develop a realistic research problem– Pitch at appropriate level (freshmen)– Determine which student population

should be involved– Engage appropriate faculty mentors

Shift to Active Learning: How to achieve the goals

• Goal 2: Invest students in the community– Identify potential community partners– Allow the problem to drive the

partnerships– Meet with partners (often!) prior to

involving students– Agree upon common goals for project– Determine who is responsible for

specific pieces of the project– Introduce students to partners at outset

Shift to Active Learning: How to achieve the goals

• Goal 3: Have students collect useful data– Provide sufficient background

information to guide inquiry– Decide whether student inquiry will be

open-ended or guided by faculty mentors

– Assess what resources are available– Decide on a realistic time frame– Develop techniques and teach skills – Be flexible and modify as needed

Shift to Active Learning: How to achieve the goals

• Goal 4: Develop a sense of curiosity about the natural world– Share your own enthusiasm– Encourage students to ask questions

and explore branching topics– Allow room for students to make and

correct mistakes– Reinforce the idea that they are doing

“real science”– Encourage interactions among

students, faculty mentors, and community members

Shift to Active Learning: How to achieve the goals

• Goal 5: Develop understanding of the nature of science– Emphasize the idea that the answers

are not known—they are generating NEW knowledge

– Allow students to troubleshoot and brainstorm

– Teach fundamentals of data analysis and interpretation

– Provide forums for communication of results to appropriate audiences

UW-Manitowoc Biology Project: Southern Manitowoc County Creek Watersheds

• Worked with two community partners to assess stream health in our region– Part of a larger creek restoration and

assessment project undertaken by our partners

• Two modes of student involvement– Independent research internship (Summers)– Research-based laboratory experience

(integrated into Freshman Biology Courses)

Developing the Partnership:

Students

Community

Research

Background on Centerville Project

• Centerville Creek – site of mill pond dam• Dam removed in 1996—sediment remained,

compromising creek health

• Lakeshore Natural Resource Partnership – sought and received funding to restore creek

• Needed scientific advising/assessment!• Approached UW-Manitowoc for help• Classes and interns involved in baseline

data collection

Partnership - UW ManitowocTwo Years2010 and 2011

Student interns • Baseline assessment• 5 points along Centerville Creek in 2010, 7 points in 2011• Weekly measurements of physical, chemical, biological

characteristics– pH, temperature, flow, turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,

ammonia, phosphorus– E. coli

Lab Courses• Macroinvertebrate surveys added• Repeated Measures on Centerville, Fischer, Point and this year on Pine

Centerville Creek, Summer 2010

Data Summary: Centerville Creek, Summer 2010

Averages for All Creek Sample Points, Summer 2010

Water temperature (°C)* 21.2

pH 8.3

Turbidity (NTU)* 22.1

Stream flow (ft/sec)* 5.67

Conductivity (µS) 792

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)* 8.43

Phosphate (mg/L)* 0.59

Ammonia nitrogen (mg/L)* 0.6

E. coli (MPN/100 ml)* 1016.1

Integration into Biology Labs; Fall 2010

• Centerville, Point, Fischer Creeks

• Students in BIO 108, BIO 109, ZOO 101

• Five lab sections-all freshman biology classes

• 5-6 lab groups per section

• Approx. 120 students per fall semester

Integration into Biology Labs; Modifications for 2011

• 2010 – pilot year• One sampling trip per lab section• Stand-alone lab• Brief instructions for communication: letter to homeowners in

area

• 2011 – further integration • Became central project of BIO 108 (non-majors Environmental

Science course)• 4 sampling trips• Presentations to community partners

• 2011 – increased structure of communication component• Expanded written guidelines provided• Increased quality of student output

Sampling points: Centerville, Fischer and Point Creeks

Sampling in Action!

Example Data: Physical and Chemical Characteristics

Characteristic Sample Value Normal Range Compromised? (place an X if out of range)

Temperature (°C) 14.6 10-19°C (Summer)

pH 8.8 5.8-8.5 XHardness (mg/L) 260 N/AFlow rate (m/s) 0.064 N/ADissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

6.5 >5.0 ppm

Total Ammonia-nitrogen (mg/L)

0.5 <0.5 mg/l X

Un-ionized ammonia (mg/L)

0.094 <0.1 mg/l

Total phosphate (ppm)

0.13 0.01-0.03 (normal)

<0.1 (maximum acceptable)

X

Characteristic Sample Value Normal Range Compromised? (place an X if out of range)

Temperature (°C) 14.5 10-19°C (Summer)pH 8.8 5.8-8.5 XHardness (mg/L) 490 N/AFlow rate (m/s) 0.2414 N/ADissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

10.1>5.0 ppm

Total Ammonia-nitrogen (mg/L)

0.8<0.5 mg/l

X

Un-ionized ammonia (mg/L)

0.15<0.1 mg/l

X

Total phosphate (ppm)

0.32 0.01-0.03 (normal)<0.1 (maximum

acceptable)

X

Centerville Creek

Fischer Creek

Example Data: Biotic Index Sampling

• Quality of environment

• 3 habitats

• Excellent 3.6+• Good 2.6-3.5• Fair 2.1-2.5• Poor 1.0-2.0

• Average for Centerville Creek: 2.34

• Average for Fischer Creek: 2.46

Example Data: Biotic Index and E.coli Results

Group # Biotic Index Rating (see reporting form)

E. coli level (MPN/100 ml)

E.coli advisory status*

Hydrozoans 2.0 Poor 86.7 open

Lab. Rats 2.4 Fair 275.5 advisory

Manty 2.3 Fair 344.1 advisory

NEKS 2.0 Poor 727.0 advisory

Team Tetris 2.56 Fair 135.4 open

Zoo York 2.75 Good 218.7 open

Group # Biotic Index Rating (see reporting form)

E. coli level (MPN/100 ml)

E.coli advisory status*

Biolumenescent Mushrooms

2.68 Good 53.0 open

Dill 2.25 Fair 43.5 open

Pickles 2.0 Poor 42.0 open

Team CarolTeam Hippos 2.89 Good Not read Not read

Average E. coli level: 297.9

Average E. coli level: 46.17

E.coli Parameters:0-234.99 Open/safe for general use235-999.99 Advisory/use caution1000+ Closed/unsafe for public use

Centerville Creek:

Putting it all together—synthesis and communication

• Goals:– Students synthesize and interpret a

large data set– Students communicate ideas with

appropriate audience

• Approach:– “Write a letter to homeowners living

along the creek explaining what you did, what you found, and the significance”

Example Communication of Results

Outcomes and Lessons Learned:• Community based internship

• Summer 2010: One student• Real-world experience• Student learning beyond classroom• Community interactions

• Moving Forward• Improved structure necessary for

student success

Outcomes and Lessons Learned:

• Integration into Classrooms• Transferrable skills gained:

• Real-world experience• Data collection/analysis• Self-direction• Working on private/public land• Engagement in community

• What’s unique?• Entry point into independent research

programs which provide further opportunities to develop advanced skills

Outcomes and Lessons Learned:

• Creating a Scientific Community on Campus• Excitement about scientific research persists

• Doubling of applications for independent research project assistantships

• Entry point to further skills development• Three 2010 students became involved in

independent research in 2011

• Students pass down skills and attitudes• Two student participants currently serving as

peer mentors for freshman STEM students

Reactions:

“I feel like we’re being more productive” --Miriah Pautz, current

research mentor

Student involvement: A rewarding marriage of education and “real science”