Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
If we only knew:Predictive Plant Phenomics at
Iowa StateP3 Leadership Team
Julie Dickerson, PI Electrical and Computer Engineering
Ted Heindel, coPI Mechanical Engineering
Carolyn Lawrence-Dill, coPI Genetics, Development, and Cell Biology
Pat Schnable, coPI Agronomy
Nicole Scott Program Coordinator
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
Project Goals• New methods of graduate
training plant scientists.
• Better researchers who can address large-scale problems.
• Improve collaboration skills for faculty mentors.
2
Peterson Lab
www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
If we only knew,
• Students prefer active, hands on events!• NRT activities tend to be overplanned and overscheduled
• In classroom training efforts with lectures
• Data science: activities and contests work best
• Students are easier to train than faculty.
• Avoid using an administrative structure that a retiring dean recommends
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
P3 Program Boot CampTrainees participated in a 10-day intensive training prior to the start of the fall. The following topics were covered:• Introduction to Engineering, Plant Science, and Data
Science• Statistics and Hypothesis Testing• Two-Day Data Carpentry Workshop• Entrepreneurship and Leadership• Science Communication• Campus Facility Tours, Demonstrations, and Industry
Visits
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
Bootcamp Evolution
• Students rise and take over!
• Schedule: Focused on having ½ day in classroom, ½ day out and about in labs or hands on experience.
• 5 3 hour sessions on computing skills during boot camp-shorter and more hands on.
• Students liked this structure better and were more excited.
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
P3 Core CourseGDCB/ME/BCB 585: Fundamentals of Predictive Plant Phenomics (4 cr)
• Provides students with the necessary tools and vocabulary to tackle multidisciplinary problems
• Exposes students to engineering principles such as transport phenomena and sensor design, data science activities, and plant science fundamentals
• Hands on lab
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
P3 Core Course Activation• Sensor kits being used in teams to reduce anxiety of using
robots/plants sensors for first time• Emphasis is on exploring what can be done with the kit: failure is okay
if sensors don’t work out as planned (by students).
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
P3 Learning Community• Trainees meet two times each month
• Student led meetings• Professional development presentations
• Cohorts led by previous cohort
• Tried different formats: journal club, social outing, professional development, student presentations ….
• => Hard to come up with reasons for more senior students to attend
• Listening to students and working on creating hands on activities for outreach and Portals to the Public.
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
Summary
• Proposal process encourages us to go over the top with activities.
• It’s okay to scale back and prioritize.
• Avoid the classroom.
• Listen to the students.
RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP www.predictivephenomicsinplants.iastate.edu
Questions?
Collaboration,
Communication, and
Camaraderie: Building
Teams and CultureCHRISTOPHER KITCHENS CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
PI, RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Some RIES pillars 27 Students, 11 Departments, 4 Colleges
Collaboration space with a dedicated floor in the new Watt Family Innovation Center
Each student is co-advised in multiple disciplines
All students have at least one common course and project experience
Conferences:
Three RIES conferences each year (student-led)
A distinguished visiting speaker program
Foster (Push) Cross-disciplinary Collaboration
Communication strategy
Advisor signs an agreement (will fund, will co-advise, understands
his/her responsibilities, and those of the students)
Student signs an agreement understanding his/her responsibilities as
well, along with the specific RIES requirements
Pros
Clarifies expectations
Gives them a document to refer to
Gives the Director “leverage”
Sends a message that you’re serious!
Cons
Students forget this in 20 seconds
Faculty forget this in 2 seconds
Rules and guidelines can change
Some requirements have long runways
Like any program,
a graduate
handbook
NEEDS:
Like any project, a
visual timeline and a
progress indicator
Survey students on
how they would like
to communicate
(then,
hold them
to it)
Collaboration
In the first RIES class they take,
students are forced to collaborate
with each other
We emphasize team-building and
collaboration through special
lectures, activities, surveys and
professional development courses
We co-locate students and give
them an open, collaborative
environment
And that works!?
Yes…and no
Still have to overcome faculty not buying in (“ownership”
of their PhD student time)
Bigger problems:
If students control the research agenda, do they know what is
publishable, really?
Do your technical experts get used as collaborators or “tools”?
The issue is one of deep collaboration and changing the
mindset of the normal PhD experience
Address this head-on. Show the difference between consulting an
expert and a deep collaboration. Spread this message to faculty!
Camaraderie
By co-locating the students and involving them in
conferences, do you get them to buy in as a “family”?
Of course not. But…
Checklist:
Be intentional: Let them know you’re engaging in team-building
Leadership matters: Treat the students well, take the time to listen, set the culture
Let them lead too: Allocate funds for them to set up their own fun events
Be there: Show up and engage; be enthusiastic about your own research
What I wish I knew It will go well. It will not go smoothly.
When you pay attention and engage, people notice
When you take your eye off the ball, people notice that too
Early on, get good at:
Setting a positive, inclusive, and intellectual environment
Over-communicate (just try…you probably cannot!)
Develop leadership and entrust others to take real responsibility
Understanding the needs and workloads of the students!
Keeping it Fun and Entertaining!!!
Supporting Transdisciplinary Collaborations in Research Teams
Research and Traineeship Program
Lorenzo Ciannelli, Flaxen Conway, Ana Spalding, Cynthia Char, Julia Jones, Michael Banks, Katherine Hoffman, Alix Gitelman
Risk and Uncertainty Quantification and Communication in Marine Science and Policy
Session 1: Thursday, September 26
10:15 – 11:00 am
OSU NRT Trainee
Cohort 4
Num
berofstudents
0
5
10
15
Cohort1 Cohort2 Cohort3 Cohort4
CollegecompositionofNRTtrainee(n=44)
CEOAS FWEnvScience ScienceEngineering LiberalArts
0
5
10
15
Cohort1 Cohort2 Cohort3 Cohort4
Degreeprogram
MS PhD
Third cohort: 2018-19
CNH in Mo’orea Island
• Adriana Messyasz
• Risako Sakai
• Kaitlin McConnell
• Aaron Weinstock
• Bran Black
Marine Reserves
• Adrian Laufer
• Erin Howard
• Jenn Wong
• Megan Wilson
Sea Otter Reintroduction
• Benjamin Wickizer
• Dominique Kone
• Lorne Curran
Student Impacts: preparedness and motivation for transdisciplinary research projects
I am more prepared because I know how difficult it can be, and have some sense of what I can do to avoid the difficulties in the future.
2
6
5
7
6
6
1
1
3
1
1 1Cohort 1 (n=11)
Cohort 2 (n=9)
I am now ___ motivated.
Cohort 1 (n=11)
Cohort 2 (n=9)
I am now ___ prepared.
More Slightly more Equally Slightly less Less
The experience of working in a team, and the information in the Collaboration class has made me more aware of the challenges and benefits of trans research. It wasn’t always a positive experience though, which is why my motivation hasn’t really increased. I would almost say I am slightly less motivated, except that I really do think that collaborative transdisciplinary projects are important and valuable.
Student Impacts: preparedness and motivation for transdisciplinary research projects
2
6
5
7
6
6
1
1
3
1
1 1Cohort 1 (n=11)
Cohort 2 (n=9)
I am now ___ motivated.
Cohort 1 (n=11)
Cohort 2 (n=9)
I am now ___ prepared.
More Slightly more Equally Slightly less Less
Student impacts: knowledge & skills
Cohort 1 (n=11) Cohort 2 (n=9)
Sources of support: training elements
Cohort 1 (n=11) Cohort 2 (n=9)Collaborations
Coursework
Professional
Sources of support: human capital
Cohort 1 (n=11) Cohort 2 (n=9)
Fe
llow
train
ee
Fa
cu
lty
Lessons learned
Time constraint for researchMy NRT team did not have a research project outlined, nor had selected our team, when we started the project, and were only given one year to complete it. This was one of the most challenging aspect of the NRT program–completing meaningful research with thisgroup in less than a year.
Research specificationNot having a more defined goal for a project. We spent tons of time just brainstorming and it felt like we were going in circles.
Alignment between coursework and researchThe courses required didn't apply very well to the process of creating the transdisciplinary report. And the required work load of the courses took away from both NRT research and thesis research.
Team dynamic and interpersonal skillsAnother one of the largest challenges that I faced as an NRT student was poor team dynamics.…
Mentor involvementMentor motivation and involvement are key to the team’s success
Questions?
Artwork by Samm Newton, NRT Trainee, Cohort II, 2017-18
Research and Traineeship Program
Creating Classes for Training Cyber-Physical System(CPS) Researchers and Engineers
Yuan Tian
Computer Science, University of Virginia
NRT: A Graduate Traineeship in Cyber Physical Systems• JOHN STANKOVIC
HOMA ALEMZADEHBRAD CAMPBELLCODY FLEMINGJON GOODALLDAN QUINNLU FENGTOLU ODUMOSUYUAN TIAN
Creating classes, sounds simple!
Wait, what if you need to cover a very diversified background of students?• How to make sure we can help all the students in the program?
• 6 Different Departments
• How to design the pre-requirements?
Principles of designing the classes
• To provide exposure to principles, skills, analytics, and tools required to work in or perform research in CPS
• To emphasize the interaction of the physical and cyber rather than typical materials on these topics
Slides by Jack Stankovic
Who should be teaching these classes?
• How to have sustainable instructors?
Coordination with administrators, other programs• How to comply with other degree requirements?
• How to coordinate with different departments?
How to evaluate these classes?
• What kind of metrics should we use given the different background of students?
Our final structure of classes
• 5 core classes
• 6 in-depth classes
• Students sign up for a core class which has 2 “fixed” modules in it
• There is no crossing over between modules in a semester (simplifies logistics/grading/ assigning instructors, etc.)
• Classes are offered across 6 Departments
5 Core Classes (semester = 2 modules)Bootcamp Bootcamp
Embedded Programming
Wireless Sensor Networks
Signal Processing+ ML Feedback Control
Solids Fluids
Formal Methods Safety + Security
Fall
Fall
Fall +Spring
Spring
Spring
REQ.
Slides by Jack Stankovic
In-depth Classes
• It is expected that Depts will be offering classes that meet CPS in-depth (perhaps with some tweaking by the CPS instructor)• To emphasize the Cyber – Physical Interaction
• Ideally – no extra teaching load in terms of classes, but perhaps in enrollment
• Cur. Requirement is 2 in-depth classes in Fall and 1 in Spring, but offer more than this to present choice
Slides by Jack Stankovic
Take-aways
• It’s a challenging and rewarding experience!
• Tips:• Plan early, coordinate more
• Get non-PIs involved
• Communicate more with each other
• Keep in mind the diversity of students
Widening the Web of the Individual Development Plan
Debra Fowler
Center for Teaching Excellence
NSF-DGE-1545403
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02586-5
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Columbia-Had-Little-Success/246989
Academia Industry
WorkValues
Help Society
Help Others
People Contact
Teamwork
Friendships
Congenial Atmosphere
Competition
Make Decisions
Fast Pace
Supervision
Influence People
Work AloneIndependence
Intellectual Challenge
Work on Frontiers of Knowledge
Expert Status
Creativity
Aesthetics
Predictability
Variety
Job Security
Benefits Available
RecognitionRisk Taking
Earning Potential
Location
Physically Challenging
Not Physically Challenging
Flexible Schedule
Status and Prestige
Professional Development
Job TranquilityWork/Life Balance
Family Friendly
Exercise Competence
High Demand
Learn New Things
Informational Interview
Questions?
NSF-DGE-1545403
Acknowledgement:
Lessons learned in developing
an interdisciplinary training
program at the nexus of food,
energy, and water systems
ANDREW C. WILCOX DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCESUNIVERSITY OF MONTANA
UM BRIDGES: Graduate Training at
the Food-Energy-Water Nexus
UM BRIDGES trains future leaders from diverse backgrounds to advance societally relevant science toward more sustainable food-energy-water systems
Poster session 2: 3-3:45 pm (J. Vanderwall et al.)
Developing next-generation leaders to tackle challenges at the nexus of food, energy, and water systems
Train future leaders from diverse backgrounds to advance societally-relevant science toward more sustainable food-energy-water systems
Students: Prepare diverse graduate students to transform FEW research systems
Research: Generate and disseminate new FEWS knowledge
Faculty: Positively impact FEW faculty careers and highlight leadership in FEW nexus research
Goal
Objectives
University of Montana INFEWS NRT: UM BRIDGES
NSF Funding
Trainees
BRIDGES PIs
Program Coordinator
BRIDGES Faculty
Steering Committee
External Advisory
Committee
UM Grad Students
External Evaluator
UM Faculty
Tribal/ Community
Partners
Mentoring & IDPs
Resources Activities*
Core Course
Speaker Series
Seminar: Science to Practice
Seminar: Science Comms I
Workshop: Numeracy
Internships
Co-Labs
External Trainings & Conferences
International Experience
Retreats
External Evaluation
Cohort Recruitment/Building
Tribal Interface/Broader Impacts
FEWS Networking
EAC Interface
Disciplinary Research/Training
Trai
nin
g
Res
earc
h
Eval
uat
ion
/Co
mm
un
ity
Outputs
14 Individual Development Plans
1 course updated, 2 seminars developed,
1 workshops held, 2 multi-day speaker events held
Attended by:19 NRT-funded trainees
7 Non-NRT funded trainees>~100 non-BRIDGES graduate students
>30 faculty>50 community members
8 trainees and 6 faculty attend conferences & trainings
5 trainees complete internships & 5 in progress
2 co-labs held with 7 trainees & 2 grad students & 7 faculty
38 published manuscripts, 56 conference presentations
1 orientation and retreat held
Continued contact with INFEWS workshop attendees and manuscript in preparation
3 trainees & 2 faculty travel internationally
Cohort 1: retained 11 of 14 traineesCohort 2: retained 14 of 14 trainees
Cohort 3: 7/4 NRT-/non-NRT funded recruited, 55% women, and additional trainees to be added soon
13 evaluation instruments distributed to trainees, faculty, or mentors
Multiple Broader Impacts activities completed
Culture of interdisciplinary and systems thinking
Pro
gram
Trai
nee
STEM students prepared for multiple career paths
Vibrant intellectual FEW community
Diverse, high-quality trainees recruited and retained
Broader STEM participation
Innovative research catalyzed
Early-career faculty supported
UM is a leader in FEWS
Understand FEW science, society, and ethics across
disciplines
Innovate and problem solve toward sustainable FEWS
Facile with interdisciplinary methods and skills
Ability to bridge science-practice-policy
Engaged in communicating science within and beyond
discipline
Outcomes
Logic Model for AY 2018-2019
Res
earc
h
1 meeting with 4 EAC members and 6 faculty
Training elements / lessons
learned
“Core course”: The Food-Energy-Water Nexus
Science communications
Numeracy
Co-labs
Winemiller et al.
(Science, 2016)
Challenges
Governance
Sustaining faculty engagement
Limits to / challenges of interdisciplinarity
Numeracy / computational training
Incentives
Program sustainability: BRIDGES 3.0?
