Chapter 6

Evaluation, Insights, and Realities

This chapter presents a preliminary evaluation of the Institute.56 It begins with an account of the final facilitator debriefing at the end of the Institute and also includes data from the survey (see Appendix G) sent to participants three weeks later and their open-ended comments about particular aspects of the meeting. Insights from the outcomes of the implementation grants and the discussions at the reunion are included as well. Finally, the committee offers its judgments, based on the experience of designing and implementing the Institute, to inform similar current and future activities.

EVALUATION

Final Facilitator Team57Debriefing

The facilitator team members met immediately after the Institute to share their thoughts about the event. The majority of the participants were committed to implementing the educational methods with a focus on responsible science at their home institutions. However, it was clear that many of the ideas introduced at the Institute were new to the participants. It also was clear that, in contrast to the National Academies Summer Institutes on Undergraduate Biology Education (NASI), a smaller amount of instruction about pedagogy per se (versus modeling pedagogy during discussions about responsible science) would be easier for participants to absorb and process.

Some of the Institute’s potential impact was lost because of the lack of advance preparation. Unfortunately, the committee’s expectation that participants would read the background materials prior to the Institute was not made clear. For future institutes it will be important to convey as clearly as possible everything what the participants are expected to do in advance. This also might include offering a series of questions or dilemmas to be considered during the Institute. Such questions, conveyed in cover letters or emails, rather than the background readings themselves, would engender greater interest and curiosity and alert participants to the kinds of problem solving to be undertaken during the Institute.

To be accepted to the NASI, one member per team was expected to participate in the reunion meeting during the academic year 2012-2013. The facilitator team agreed that it would be very important to (1) continue to provide all participants access to the Institute’s materials

______________________

56 As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, in the field of education research “assessment” and “evaluation” are different concepts. Assessment refers to “tools for measuring progress toward and achievement of the learning goal” (Handelsman et al., 2007:19), while evaluation refers to “the process of analyzing the results of assessment and determining whether the goals have been achieved” (Handelsman et al., 2007:20).

57 The “facilitator team” includes members of the committee and invited individuals who worked with participants at the Institute.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 73
Chapter 6 Evaluation, Insights, and Realities This chapter presents a preliminary evaluation methods with a focus on responsible science at of the Institute.56 It begins with an account of the their home institutions. However, it was clear final facilitator debriefing at the end of the that many of the ideas introduced at the Institute Institute and also includes data from the survey were new to the participants. It also was clear (see Appendix G) sent to participants three that, in contrast to the National Academies weeks later and their open-ended comments Summer Institutes on Undergraduate Biology about particular aspects of the meeting. Insights Education (NASI), a smaller amount of from the outcomes of the implementation grants instruction about pedagogy per se (versus and the discussions at the reunion are included modeling pedagogy during discussions about as well. Finally, the committee offers its responsible science) would be easier for judgments, based on the experience of designing participants to absorb and process. and implementing the Institute, to inform Some of the Institute’s potential impact was similar current and future activities. lost because of the lack of advance preparation. Unfortunately, the committee’s expectation that participants would read the background EVALUATION materials prior to the Institute was not made clear. For future institutes it will be important to Final Facilitator Team57 Debriefing convey as clearly as possible everything what the participants are expected to do in advance. This The facilitator team members met immediately also might include offering a series of questions after the Institute to share their thoughts about or dilemmas to be considered during the the event. The majority of the participants were Institute. Such questions, conveyed in cover committed to implementing the educational letters or emails, rather than the background readings themselves, would engender greater                                                              interest and curiosity and alert participants to 56 As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, in the field of education research “assessment” and “evaluation” are different the kinds of problem solving to be undertaken concepts. Assessment refers to “tools for measuring during the Institute. progress toward and achievement of the learning goal” To be accepted to the NASI, one member (Handelsman et al., 2007:19), while evaluation refers to “the per team was expected to participate in the process of analyzing the results of assessment and reunion meeting during the academic year 2012- determining whether the goals have been achieved” (Handelsman et al., 2007:20). 2013. The facilitator team agreed that it would 57 The “facilitator team” includes members of the be very important to (1) continue to provide all committee and invited individuals who worked with participants access to the Institute’s materials participants at the Institute. 73

OCR for page 73
74 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region and (2) be available to help participants address Chapter 5). Twenty-six of 28 participants questions after they return to their home responded to the survey, the results of which are institutions. described in the next several sections. The facilitators and other leaders of NASI routinely identify participants who might be General Information about the Participants invited to serve as facilitators at future NASI. General characteristics of the participants were Identifying and preparing facilitators from the discussed in Chapter 4 as part of the committee’s participant pool enables them to reflect on the approach to recruitment. Figure 6-1 shows that goals, objectives, and implementation strategies most participants identified themselves as from two perspectives and enables them to university faculty while a few identified become leaders for disseminating NASI’s goals themselves as academic administrators. and practices. The facilitator team concluded The survey asked participants to indicate that a similar model would be appropriate for whether they teach primarily undergraduates, future Institutes. graduate or postdoctoral students, or others. The results are shown in Figure 6-2. Among the Post-Institute Survey responses to the third choice (“Other”) were demonstrator (i.e., a master’s-level student), As part of the evaluation process, the facilitator chief researcher, and faculty who teach both team developed a web-based survey for the undergraduate and graduate students. participants. Three weeks after the Institute Participants were also asked to indicate up participants received an invitation to take the to three reasons they chose to attend the survey together with the Request for Institute. Figure 6-3 shows the percentage of Applications for the implementation grants (see each selected option. FIGURE 6-1 Rank of attendees by title (N=26). SOURCE: Data compiled by the committee.

OCR for page 73
Evaluation, Insights, and Realities 75 FIGURE 6-2 How participants described their primary audiences. “Faculty” refers to a participant who is actively engaged in research and who also teaches. “Lecturer” refers to a participant whose primary responsibilities are teaching. SOURCE: Data compiled by committee. FIGURE 6-3 Reasons participants applied for the Institute. The answers in this figure are presented in ascending order starting with the option chosen by the fewest number of people. This differs from the order in which the options were presented in the survey. A To reconnect with colleagues who share my interest in responsible conduct of science B To meet colleagues from my country who share interests in responsible conduct of science C To meet colleagues from other countries who share interests in responsible conduct of science D To become more involved with future efforts to improve education about the responsible conduct of research internationally E To deepen my understanding of the issues related to the responsible conduct of science F To become more involved with future efforts to improve education about the responsible conduct of research in my country G To discover tools, resources, and best practices for incorporating evidence-based teaching techniques into my courses SOURCE: Data compiled by the committee.    

OCR for page 73
76 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region Participants’ Overall Rating of the Institute plenary and breakout sessions. Participants were asked to rate different Figure 6-5 illustrates participants’ high levels aspects of the Institute; Figure 6-4 shows that of satisfaction with the overall goals of the more than 80 percent rated the quality of the Institute, the instructional materials, and the sessions as either excellent or very good. There relevance of the topics to their professional was a greater diversity of responses on questions careers. about the use and balance of time spent in Participants' Ratings of the Institute's Sessions, Delivery of Workshop Material and Group Work 100% 90% 80% Percent Response (N=26) 70% Poor 60% Fair 50% Good Very Good 40% Excellent 30% 20% 10% 0% A B C D E F Sessions Delivery of Material Group Work FIGURE 6-4 Participants’ ratings of different aspects of the Institute, as defined: A Quality of sessions about the responsible conduct of science B Quality of sessions about the scientific basis for the use of active learning techniques C Inclusion of information and perspectives from a diverse range of views D Amount of time devoted to discussions during plenary sessions E Balance of time spent in whole group and team breakout sessions F Helpfulness of your breakout group’s facilitators SOURCE: Data compiled by the committee.

OCR for page 73
Evaluation, Insights, and Realities 77 Participants' Ratings of the Institute's Goals, Instructional Materials, and Relevance to Their Careers 100% 90% Percent Response (N=26) 80% 70% Poor 60% Fair 50% Good 40% Very Good Excellent 30% 20% 10% 0% A B C D E F Goals Materials Relevance FIGURE 6-5 Participants’ ratings of different aspects of the Institute, as defined below: A Clarity of Institute’s goals and objectives B Relevance of topics that were presented in relation to the stated goals of the Institute C Usefulness of resources provided by the organizers and presenters (e.g., background resources in the Dropbox and briefing book) D Value of the Institute as a learning or professional development experience E Relevance to you and your work of the issues presented F Time to meet and interact with other participants SOURCE: Data compiled by the committee. When asked “If the National Academies Open-Ended Comments were to organize and host additional Institutes Participants were asked what they found to or related activities on this topic in the future, be particularly effective or not effective about the would you be interested in participating?” 81 Institute. The majority of comments indicated percent of the participants selected “definitely,” that the Institute was effective for many reasons, with the remaining selecting “maybe.” Of those but some reflected that the pace of the Institute who indicated they would like to be involved in was intense and the schedule crowded with too future Institutes, 62 percent wrote that they many subjects. Table 6-1 lists the participants’ would like to be a facilitator. responses (edited for clarity), organized by effective and ineffective aspects of the Institute.        

OCR for page 73
78 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region TABLE 6-1 Effective and Ineffective Aspects of the Institute. SOURCE: Information compiled by the committee. Effective Aspects of the Institute  Interactive comprehensive coverage of all topics in a friendly yet responsible environment.  Round table discussion and cases are effective  The open discussion was very effective...the organization of the groups at the beginning and during the workshop was great. Talks were unexpectedly awesome.  Effective points: 1- Active interaction of well qualified trainers. 2- Time management. 3- Clear follow up plan. 4- Appropriate class facilities. 5- Hospitality.  Everything was very interesting and very exciting: 1. Active Learning Techniques 2. Trainers 3. Scientific Material 4. Work in Teams 5. Exchange of Experiences  Highly experienced faculty with simple transfer of data to participants  Effective: Knowing other faculties nationally and internationally. The spirit of cooperation made the institute pass like one day.  Smooth cruising into the presentation and discussion of the contents of the Institute and also dealing firmly and friendly from the institute presenters and facilitators with the participants.  In my opinion all training sessions were effective.  Conducting research responsibly; the development of professionalism in science; being part of the responsible scientific community.  The committee and facilitators were serious and friendly at the same time. The use of all materials used in a manner not boring.  The use of new approach in teaching and the use of dual science  Most effective was Pedagogy  Most of the activities in the institute were particularly effective.  I found the effective points were the group discussion and how the facilitator helped us to get correct aspects and encouraged every participant to integrate with each other. Using the clickers during the lecture was new to me. How to teach the complex and difficult scientific topics in thoughtful ways.  This is the first time I’ve attended such an intensive educational workshop. The tools such as case studies and role playing, I found more effective for me. The iclicker was also an effective tool to use for evaluation, however, I don’t think I will use it at my institution with the large numbers of students....probably very expensive to get.  I think the workshop was very valuable and gave me more experience and also gave me the chance to meet and deal with other international colleagues.  The Institute was effective for many reasons: - It was an excellent training for me to be confronted to work with people from developed countries and countries who are facing the same problems as in my country. - To learn new tenets and pedagogical techniques for active learning. - Learn more about the different facets of what it means to conduct responsible science. - To share thoughts and learn on case studies about relevant topics: co-authorships, biosafety and biosecurity, international collaboration etc. - Develop a new network for future collaboration with mutual

OCR for page 73
Evaluation, Insights, and Realities 79 interest/benefit  New teaching techniques and the assessment methods I found particularly effective for me.  I found that using case study and other methods of interactive learning was very effective and I will apply in teaching courses in my institution. Moreover, subjects of discussion like misconduct and safe laboratory standards are very important and direct our minds to very critical issues.  They worked as one team and shared in all discussing points and activities in the workshop  The responsible conduct of research thru discussing issues related to mentoring, authorship and active learning  Interactive session on scientific misconduct cases  J’ai sincèrement admiré le sérieux des organisateurs et facilitateurs et leur engagement dans le travail pour mener bien et réussir les objectifs qu’ils s’étaient fixés. Personnellement j’ai énormément appris sur le plan professionnel bien sûr mais aussi sur le plan humain ou j’ai vu à l’œuvre la générosité sans limite ni faille de certaines personnes, leur disponibilité à tout instant ainsi que leur penchant naturel à donner, à se rendre utiles sans pour autant espérer une contre partie. Tels furent à mes yeux les personnes qui ont pris en charge cette entreprise. Le groupe américain a était exemplaire à plus d’un titre... Que ses membres soient tous remerciés! (I sincerely admire the 'seriousness' (professionalism, effectiveness) of the organizers and facilitators and their commitment to successfully pursue the set goals. Personally, I learned an enormous amount at the professional level but also at the level of human relations observing in practice the limitless generosity and availability (of the aforementioned people). (I admired) their natural (spontaneous) offer to give (share) and to be of use without any compensation. Such have been the individuals in charge of this (whole) endeavor. The American group has been exemplary in more than one way (above and beyond the call of duty). All its members deserve (our) gratitude.) Ineffective Aspects of the Institute  The programme was very crowded.  Dual use issues were delinquent.  On the other hand, there were some issues regarding the place and the time of the workshop: (1) We took about 4 hours to travel from Amman to Aqaba and from Aqaba to Amman and this was fatiguing for me. (2) We start every day from (8 Am to 7 Pm) and this is too much time. (3) There is no entertainment and fun means during the workshop.  The survey is ineffective.  The intensive working hours is one drawback.  I think the contents were very superficial as the institute tried to give us more than one subject in only one week as the pedagogy.  Each topic should be a separate workshop.    

OCR for page 73
80 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region INSIGHTS  NASI have demonstrated that a reunion of some participants after an Institute can NASI, which involves a variety of evidence- provide new insights about participants’ based approaches to active teaching, learning, challenges, resources, and opportunities for engagement, and assessment, can be adapted to networking and for sustaining programs (for different topics, cultural contexts, and countries. details, see Chapter 5). The Institute In the course of reviewing the design and described in this report further confirmed implementation of this Institute, the committee that a reunion can be especially important identified a number of insights that could help to for participants from developing countries. improve future projects. They include logistical, For example, by the end of the reunion in academic, and cultural challenges and realities. Jordan, the scientists who attended agreed that their ability to conduct their own work  Active engagement of committee members around responsible conduct and to reach and Institute leaders before, during, and other colleagues at their home institutions, after the Institute is crucial. across their individual countries, and in the  A detailed application and merit-based MENA region as a whole could be expanded selection process can identify enthusiastic and sustained by establishing a network and committed participants who will, in among them. They decided to use this turn, demonstrate the importance of such network to share ideas, common challenges, approaches to colleagues at their home and opportunities, and to develop joint institutions and in their disciplines. proposals for future work.  Teaching about and modeling pedagogy can  As with the development of NASI, new play a significant role in the success of an Institutes will require continuing Institute. experimentation with and evaluation of all  The demanding pace of the Institute made it aspects of their design. Feedback from the hard for some participants to comprehend participants, combined with the results of the concepts and techniques fully and apply their projects, can play an important role in them during small group work. Future future iterations. Institutes will benefit either by providing  The introduction of both new pedagogies more time to integrate active learning with and new content at the same time can be a new content or by reducing the breadth or significant challenge for some participants. both. Reviewing background materials in advance  The design of resources and assessments for of the Institute can lessen this impact. an Institute benefits from particular However, materials written in English about attention to linguistic and cultural new concepts, such as active learning and differences among participants and dual use, may present obstacles for non- facilitators. Working with partners from the English speakers. region where the Institute will take place allows organizers to take into account local customs, traditions, and cultures in ways REALITIES that remove barriers and foster stronger relationships among organizers and  Framing biosafety and dual use issues in the participants. context of responsible science was

OCR for page 73
Evaluation, Insights, and Realities 81 meaningful to many participants.  Scientific research in the MENA region has However, based on conversations during advanced remarkably over the last plenary discussions with the participants generation. But participants reiterated that who attended the reunion meeting in the lack of a formal framework and Amman, practical realities such as the lack infrastructure for research in their countries of basic scientific equipment, reliable (e.g., the absence of comprehensive policies Internet connections, and access to scientific and oversight structures regarding journals impede scientists in this region, and authorship, peer review, research with especially those from more impoverished laboratory animals and human subjects, and nations, from undertaking research at a level biosafety) makes it difficult for scientists to where dual use issues raise concerns for follow international standards and to teach them. People undertaking activities where best practices in responsible science to their research with dual use potential and/or students. misuse of technologies is to be a topic need  As the committee learned from the active to take this reality into account when learning exercise conducted on day 1 of the planning their events or programs. Institute, in which participants from each  Some concepts that are crucial to active nation worked together to describe their learning, responsible science, and dual use country’s system of higher education, there cannot be expressed in Arabic. In most of are both similarities and differences in the countries represented at this Institute, education philosophies, approaches to teaching about science occurs in English but teaching and learning, facilities, and instructors sometimes provide additional resources among nations. These differences explanations or contexts in Arabic (or need to be taken into consideration when French in Algeria). Arabic-speaking planning future Institutes. A recent report scientists and students may interpret English funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New words in ways that are different from what York provides useful data to help organizers the organizers intend. For example, the of future events take these differences into facilitator team learned that there is only one consideration (Bhandari and El-Amine, Arabic word for the two English words 2012). “search” and “research,” which may  The small grants awarded to participants contribute to misunderstanding the were used creatively to address an array of standards for plagiarism in English-language educational needs that they identified, as journals among Arabic-speaking scientists noted in Table 5-1. In many cases these and students. For example, several funds prompted subsequent institutional participants told the group that when they support to sustain participants’ instructional ask their students to define “research,” the activities. However, as also occurs in the common response is to find the information United States, limited funding restricted the in question on Google or another search ability of these motivated science educators engine. The students are not concerned to reach larger audiences who would benefit about copying and pasting information from from instruction on responsible science, the Internet into their essays and research biosafety, and dual use issues. reports.    

OCR for page 73
82 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region At the reunion, discussions after each following four broad categories represent an presentation and after all presenters had amalgam of these suggestions: described their post-Institute activities revealed a great deal of variation in the ways participants in  Implications of dual use those activities were surveyed about their The committee was charged with addressing learning and the project’s efficacy. Assessment research with “dual use” potential in the and evaluation are an issue for science faculty context of responsible conduct of science as around the world. Providing additional guidance part of its Statement of Task (Box 1-2 in and models of survey instruments before such Chapter 1). However, as a result of both projects are undertaken could provide much designing the Institute and engaging with its more useful and usable data for future participants, it became clear to the initiatives. committee that the term “dual use” might Taken together, these insights offer not be the most appropriate one to use to important lessons for the design and communicate to the next generation of implementation of future programs in the scientists and the various publics the MENA region as well as in other parts of the complexity of the issues. Through the case world. studies presented and the discussions, it became apparent that “multiple uses” might be a preferable descriptor since virtually all IMPLICATIONS: NEXT STEPS AND scientific activities are on a continuum from SUSTAINABILITY exemplary to malicious conduct.58 Given the differences between cultural norms, As discussed briefly in Chapter 2, NASI, which perspectives, and levels of scientific research are intended to transform how undergraduate among countries, scientists may be biology is taught in the United States, have uncertain about boundaries of recognized that fundamental change takes time. ethical/unethical behavior that “dual use” Similarly, the committee agrees that for connotes because these behaviors are more meaningful change to be sustainable, the complex than these two categories imply. projects and lessons learned from the first There could, therefore, be value in Institute need to be followed by additional emphasizing a continuum rather than a efforts. In modifying future Institutes or similar starker dichotomy of research and behavior activities, these efforts would also need to take as part of the discussions at the Institutes. into account the insights gained through the committee’s evaluation work for the first Institute discussed above.                                                              New Possibilities and Needs 58 The term was adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry for the educational materials on Multiple Uses of Chemicals that it developed in 2007 in Based on feedback from Institute participants, cooperation with the Organization for the Prohibition of and others who became familiar with the Chemical Weapons. The material, which was being updated Institute format as well as the committee, a series when this report went to press, is available at of ideas emerged about ways to reconfigure or http://multiple.kcvs.ca/. The IAC-IAP project on extend the potential reach of the Institutes. The Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise chose the term “misuse” (IAC-IAP, 2012).

OCR for page 73
Evaluation, Insights, and Realities 83  Involving policymakers and regulators in As noted in Chapter 5 and earlier in this both the planning and conduct of future chapter, assessment of learning and Institutes evaluation of the efficacy of a program can This Institute focused on recruiting faculty be difficult because (1) people whose native and lecturers who would likely teach about language is not the one used to the issues themselves. But policymakers and communicate may interpret words and regulators of scientific policy, education, phrases differently than the Institute development, rules, and funding from the organizers had intended, and (2) assessment region where an Institute is conducted could of learning in higher education has contribute valuable insights, perspectives, traditionally been restricted to summative and doses of reality for participants assessments that are given infrequently and interested in developing RCS educational are created by people with little expertise in programs in their countries. In turn, psychometrics (the quantitative policymakers and regulators could benefit measurement tools and techniques from learning about the perspectives of developed in psychology). At the reunion scientists from their own and other meeting in Amman it became clear that countries in an environment that fosters grantees had used a broad spectrum of respectful dialogue and challenges assessment and evaluation instruments. assumptions of individual participants. Participants were eager to know what Consulting with policymakers and instruments are already available that they regulators from the region prior to an could modify for their own purposes. Online Institute also could help organizers to better instruments, such as the NSF-supported understand and tailor the subjects and issues Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains that they hope to address in ways that will be (www.salgsite.org/), offer such templates. more meaningful to participants at an When developing future institutes, it would Institute. The importance of these be helpful to provide a list of such resources connections became apparent when a and to spend some time helping participants committee member and a member of the understand their uses and value. project staff spent several days in Algeria For purposes of evaluating individual consulting with representatives from various programs consistently, developing government offices as well as educators at evaluation instruments that could be used by Algerian universities in anticipation of a all participants who undertake subsequent workshop there in June 2013 that is also activities could ease their workloads and sponsored by the Biosecurity Engagement make comparable data more readily Program at the U.S. Department of State. available to Institute organizers. That workshop will assist Algerians in developing a national curriculum in  Use of online technologies and resources bioethics. Institutes that involve regional or international travel for a small number of  Assessment of learning and evaluation of participants from any given country will, by programs during institutes and in subsequent themselves, have minuscule impact in activities addressing a very large set of national issues. NASI has begun to address this limitation by    

OCR for page 73
84 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region expanding to a series of seven regional event or experience is expected to be sufficient to institutes each summer based on the annual foster genuine change. Such an Institute would institutes that were held in Madison, not be a part of this National Academies project Wisconsin, for many years. However, and would require new funding, although it regional institutes still cannot address the could take advantage of the ties already created magnitude of change that is needed across with institutions such as the Bibliotheca hundreds of institutions and tens, perhaps Alexandrina, The World Academy of Sciences hundreds of thousands of students. In (TWAS), or the Jordan University of Science addition, the costs for the Institute approach and Technology (JUST). may be prohibitive in many parts of the The option for a follow-on Institute most world. favored by the committee would bring together Thus the use of increasingly sophisticated several facilitators from the first Institute with online technologies and the development of some alumni. This arrangement could enhance online resources to reach much larger their engagement with the methods and numbers of scientists, educators, and concepts promoted by the program. In the policymakers should be considered and course of this second Institute, the Bibliotheca supported. Social media, massive open Alexandrina would have the opportunity to online courses (MOOCs), and other forms develop and host a website with materials from of distance learning are some possible the Institutes as well as other resources to solutions. However, given this Institute's provide information and promote application of emphasis on evidence-based active teaching responsible science and active learning in and learning, it must be recognized that universities and other research settings overreliance on online technologies might throughout the MENA region. Translating the compromise this aspect of the experience. A Institute’s relevant materials into Arabic would great deal of research is now under way to offer an outreach opportunity for interested explore how such technologies might both scientists, policymakers, and others in the enhance and compromise deep learning. region. The results of this work, in combination It is also essential to help build participants’ with the ability of web-based approaches to capacity to work more independently in their reach great numbers of students, should be home countries. To begin the process, two taken into consideration by those who plan participants from the first Institute, from Yemen future programs. and Egypt, will attend one of the 2013 regional Summer Institutes in the United States.59 This weeklong immersion in active learning Potential Next Steps in the MENA Region techniques will significantly increase their skills and abilities to implement active programs in A second regional Institute where the lessons responsible science in their own countries as from the first Institute would be applied is a well as to serve as facilitators at future Institutes. logical activity to take advantage of the insights A number of participants already have gained through this committee’s evaluation envisioned one-half to two-day “mini-Institutes” work. As discussed in Chapter 2, one of the to provide basic content and active learning fundamental characteristics of successful faculty development programs is follow-up; no single                                                              59 www.academiessummerinstitute.org/.

OCR for page 73
Evaluation, Insights, and Realities 85 experiences to a particular department or participant network that involves the faculty. These might be logical projects for NationalAcademies in parallel with other former Institute participants to create, perhaps comparable programs on responsible science in collaboration with a larger, continuing MENA and dual use issues.60                                                              60 For example, with regard to dual use issues, the programs on “dual use bioethics” operated by Bradford University and a new two-year, EU-supported project to create an “International Network of universities and institutes for raising awareness on dual-use concerns in bio-technology” that began work in January 2013 have connections to some of the countries in the MENA region. Further information about the Bradford activities is available at www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/about/ and about the EU project at www.cbrn-coe.eu/Projects.aspx.    

OCR for page 73