1. Wading in the Research Stream: Science
Beyond the Classroom
2. “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”)
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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)
11. 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
12. Partnership - UW Manitowoc
Two Years
2010 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
14. Data Summary: Centerville Creek,
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
15. 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
16. 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
20. Example Data: Physical and Chemical
Characteristics
Centerville Creek
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 X
Hardness (mg/L) 490 N/A
Flow rate (m/s) 0.2414 N/A
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
10.1
>5.0 ppm Fischer Creek
Total Ammonia- 0.8 X
<0.5 mg/l
nitrogen (mg/L)
Un-ionized 0.15 X
<0.1 mg/l
ammonia (mg/L)
Total phosphate 0.32 0.01-0.03 (normal) X
(ppm) <0.1 (maximum
acceptable)
21. 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
22. Example Data: Biotic Index and E.coli
Results E.coli Parameters:
0-234.99 Open/safe for general use
235-999.99 Advisory/use caution
1000+ Closed/unsafe for public use
Centerville Creek:
Group # Biotic Index Rating (see E. coli level E.coli
reporting form) (MPN/100 advisory
ml) 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
Average E. coli level: 297.9
Group # Biotic Index Rating (see E. coli level E.coli
reporting form) (MPN/100 advisory
ml) status*
Biolumenescent 2.68 Good 53.0 open
Mushrooms
Dill 2.25 Fair 43.5 open
Pickles 2.0 Poor 42.0 open
Team Carol
Team Hippos 2.89 Good Not read Not read
Average E. coli level: 46.17
23. 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‖
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. Reactions:
“I feel like we’re being more productive” --
Miriah Pautz, current research mentor
