Education
Training the Next Generation of
Renaissance Scientists: The GK–12
Ecologists, Educators, and Schools
Program at The University of
Montana
Brooke Baldauf M c Bride, Carol A. Brewer, Mary Bricker, and Michael Machura
In response to the need to prepare students to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, new models of graduate education are being developed
across the country. One model is provided by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education (GK–12) program,
which broadens graduate students’ training beyond their traditional research programs. We explored the impact of an ecologically focused GK–12
program at The University of Montana and the broader impacts of a set of other environmental-science-oriented GK–12 programs in the United
States. These types of programs are urgently needed to ensure that future leaders of the scientific enterprise are well equipped with the tools to conduct science as skilled collaborators, to address the key interdisciplinary questions that arise from complex environmental challenges facing society,
and to better communicate their science with diverse audiences well beyond their scientific peers.
Keywords: graduate training, NSF GK–12, education, teaching, professional development
A
s global environmental issues intensify and become more multifaceted and complex, the environmentalscience community is increasingly challenged to contribute
the most current scientific information to the environmental decisionmaking process. Ecological knowledge
and expertise are urgently needed in addition to the
social, political, and economic perspectives that factor into
environmental decisions. To meet this need, ecologists
must effectively engage with scientists in other disciplines
and with policymakers, land managers, and the general
public (NRC 2009).
Traditionally, ecologists and other scientists have tended to
communicate mostly with their research colleagues through
their writings and at meetings. This is no great surprise,
because traditional models of scientific training do not
typically prepare ecologists to be effective communicators
and collaborators with stakeholders outside of their fields.
To address this issue, there have been numerous calls over
the past two decades for scientific training to become more
interdisciplinary (e.g., Brewer et al. 2011) and for greater
emphasis to be placed on teaching, public communication,
and outreach (e.g., Lubchenco 1998, Lubchenco et al. 1998,
NRC 2003, Brewer and Maki 2005, Palmer et al. 2005, Lowman 2006, Leshner 2007).
In response to this need, new models for scientific training
are being developed for scientists at all stages of their careers.
These models place greater emphasis on training scientists
to participate in interdisciplinary research teams, to work
at science–policy and science–management interfaces, and
to communicate clearly and succinctly to diverse audiences
in a variety of formats. Being able to understand, contribute
to, and excel in a wide variety of fields and to communicate
effectively with diverse audiences and media constitute the
attributes of what we consider to be the new “Renaissance
scientist.”
Historically, the label Renaissance man was used to
describe someone who excelled in a wide variety of subjects or fields (figure 1a). This polymath ideal arose as part
of a cultural movement that began in Italy during the late
Middle Ages and later spread to the rest of Europe. This ideal
embodied the basic tenets of Renaissance humanism, in
which humans were considered limitless in their capacities
for development. Ideally, individuals could strive to develop
their capacities as fully as possible, including the acquisition
BioScience 61: 466–476. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2011 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.9
466 BioScience • June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6
www.biosciencemag.org
Education
of almost all available important knowledge (i.e., “universal
knowledge”), and to make contributions of significant works
in multiple fields. References to the Renaissance man—akin
to the polymath of the Middle Ages—first appeared in the
Figure 1. Reenvisioning the Renaissance scientist. (a) The
archetypal Renaissance scientist, who held “universal
knowledge” and made significant contributions in multiple
fields. (b) Twenty-first century Renaissance scientists, who
pursue a multidisciplinary approach to knowledge and
contribution through collaboration. (c) The hyperspecialist,
who attempts to master and make significant contributions
in a single restricted subfield.
www.biosciencemag.org nineteenth century. Painter, scientist, and inventor Leonardo
da Vinci, for example, has often been described as the archetypal Renaissance man.
Today, however, “universal knowledge” is likely to be impossible for any one individual. In fact, it is a challenge for a
specialist to master the accumulated knowledge of a single
restricted subfield. Moreover, today, the Renaissance ideal may
even have negative connotations. For example, by sacrificing
depth for breadth, an aspiring scientist might be unkindly
described as a “jack of all trades, master of none.” Yet, given
the challenges that we face in the twenty-first century (e.g.,
NRC 2009), we argue that it is time to revisit the Renaissance
ideal in how we train future scientists. The specialists’ narrow perspective may not adequately prepare them to play a
significant role in addressing the complex challenges outlined
by the National Research Council (2009) of understanding
and sustaining ecosystem function and biodiversity in the
face of rapid change. As a substitute for the traditional model
of increasingly specialized training in one subdiscipline,
scientists who seek to make major advances will need broad
training that prepares them to collaborate effectively across
disciplines (figure 1b). Individuals trained in this way may
become the new generation of Renaissance scientists, able to
address the challenges of the twenty-first century.
Attributes of the new Renaissance scientist would include
disciplinary expertise, shared knowledge, communication
skills (including teaching), and well-developed collaborative
skills (Brewer and Maki 2005). These scientists must be able
to bring their in-depth expertise to the work of interdisciplinary teams. They also need a strong foundation in allied
fields to be able to read and understand problems and to ask
good questions of collaborators in those fields. In particular,
Renaissance scientists must communicate effectively not
only with their peers but also with nonspecialists and nonscientists (including students) in a manner that advances the
conversation from a variety of perspectives. Finally, Renaissance scientists must be able to “cooperate, contribute,
compromise, and criticize” in a way that moves the work of
the team forward and stimulates integration and synthesis
(Brewer and Maki 2005, p. 48).
Education programs that specifically emphasize and
encourage the development of these skills are emerging for
scientists at all stages of their careers. These programs range
from the New Biology and Renaissance Campus programs
for undergraduates, which emphasize real interdisciplinary
problem-solving experiences (NRC 2003, Brewer and Maki
2005), to the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program, a leadership
and communication-training program for midcareer environmental scientists (Lubchenco et al. 1998, Ehrlich 2002,
Lowman 2006, Leshner 2007, Richmond et al. 2007).
At the graduate-school level, new models are emerging as
well, designed to broaden the training of students beyond
the narrow focus on research in a single field (Austin 2002,
Pruitt-Logan et al. 2002, Campbell et al. 2005). Programs
such as the Responsive PhD Initiative of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate,
June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6 • BioScience 467
Education
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
programs advocate much broader conceptualizations of
doctoral education, with an emphasis on transcending traditional boundaries through interdisciplinary research and
collaboration, thereby training scholars who are capable of
communicating and applying their expertise in the broader
society. Another program, the NSF Graduate Teaching
Fellows in K–12 Education (GK–12) program, is focused
on improving graduate student teaching and communication skills and on the broader background and perspective
needed by a new generation of Renaissance scientists.
The GK–12 model
NSF initiated the GK–12 program in 1999, recognizing
that, in addition to being expert researchers in a given field,
graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics must be broadly trained and able to communicate science and research to a variety of audiences.
Through this program, graduate students serve as scientists
in residence in K–12 school settings and are able to work
with teachers and students. This experience provides them
with the opportunity to acquire additional skills that will
broadly prepare them for professional and scientific careers
in the twenty-first century (NSF 2011). Through the GK–12
program, NSF has funded over 200 programs at more than
140 different universities across the United States and Puerto
Rico (NSF 2011). Ideally, graduate students leave their fellowship experience with improved communication, teaching, and team-building skills—the traits of a twenty-first
century Renaissance scientist.
Despite the large and growing number of GK–12 programs
that have emerged across the country over the last decade,
only a few published studies have assessed their impacts on
graduate student participants, with most studies focusing
instead on K–12 students or their teachers. However, there
is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the numerous
important benefits for graduate fellows. Through their participation, fellows gain a fuller understanding and mastery of
the complexities of teaching (Thompson et al. 2002, Mitchell
et al. 2003, Stamp and O’Brien 2005, Trautmann and Krasny
2006, Ferreira 2007). In addition to focusing on graduate fellows’ improved teaching skills, some studies have focused on
fellows’ communicative and collaborative skills and on their
progress in their research programs during their fellowship
experiences (Thompson et al. 2002, Williams 2002, Trautmann and Krasny 2006, Moskal et al. 2007).
In this article, we look at the impact of one ecologically
focused GK–12 program at The University of Montana
(UM) and at the broader impacts of a small set of other
environmentally focused GK–12 programs in the United
States. In particular, we examined participant perceptions
of the impact of this training model on their preparation as
scientists and educators. Our article contributes to the growing body of evidence in support of these new approaches to
graduate education.
468 BioScience • June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6
The UM GK–12 program
The UM GK–12 program Ecologists, Educators, and
Schools (ECOS) provided fellowships to 29 PhD students
over a five-year period. The UM GK–12 fellows represented
a broad range of disciplines within the environmental sciences, including plant ecology, soil ecology, wildlife biology, chemistry, geology, and forestry. The fellows worked in
partnerships with teachers at rural and suburban elementary, middle, and high schools, with the common focus
of engaging students in scientific research and inquirybased learning and of promoting the use of schoolyards
as outdoor laboratories (“No child is left indoors!”). The
teams (two fellows plus two teachers) worked together to
determine how an inquiry-based or investigative approach
could best be used to supplement or enhance established
curricula, while using and enhancing the schoolyard as
an outdoor laboratory whenever possible. In addition, the
teams worked in collaboration with other academic and
nonacademic researchers and professionals to implement
a large variety of special projects to enhance site-based
learning about ecology. In general, the teams applied three
different approaches (see box 1).
In addition to their work as scientists in residence, the
fellows participated in several professional-development
activities, including two intensive, weeklong summer training institutes, several midyear workshops, and a yearlong
series of weekly seminars. Through these activities, the fellows focused on reviewing the literature related to science
pedagogy, current education-reform movements, and the
use of technology in the classroom; developing effective
teaching strategies to implement innovative guided and
open-inquiry investigations in a classroom or outdoor
field setting; using classroom-based research methods
and assessment techniques to connect their teaching with
student learning and then writing a chapter of their dissertation about their results for possible publication in
a relevant teaching journal; and preparing an academic
portfolio, including a professional curriculum vitae, which
would include teaching and research philosophies. The
elements of successful partnerships and the most effective collaborations between teachers and scientists were
explored through readings and discussions (e.g., Brewer
2002a, 2002b), and approaches to teaching ecology using
local resources were emphasized.
A number of tools and resources were developed as the
distinctive and lasting legacies of the ECOS program. All
of the fellows contributed to the development of interactive identification keys, glossaries, and species descriptions
in a novel Web-based natural history guide designed to
provide easy access to information on the plants, animals,
geology, and habitats of the western Montana region,
including original scientific illustrations (http://nhguide.
dbs.umt.edu/). As is detailed in box 1, the fellows also
contributed more than 70 inquiry-based investigations to
the free, Web-based ECOS resource for ecological education and worked in collaboration with a wide variety of
www.biosciencemag.org
Education
Box 1. Approaches to teaching and learning in the UM GK–12 program.
Classroom and schoolyard activities were designed or adapted by teams to meet curriculum requirements with an inquiry-based
approach. For example, a graduate student in soil ecology involved students in an inquiry about the effects of soil organic matter on
plant growth (Piotrowski et al. 2007). Similarly, graduate students in wildlife biology taught students about population ecology by
involving them in a mark–recapture inquiry with crickets (Whiteley et al. 2007) and about predation-avoidance strategies through
inquiries about warning coloration and camouflage (Fontaine and Decker 2009). Another graduate student in plant ecology taught
students about plant adaptation by involving them in an inquiry about seed types and dispersal mechanisms (Bricker 2009). For
more original inquiries designed by The University of Montana fellows, see www.bioed.org/ecos/inquiries/.
The fellows devised original experiments or series of experiments, monitoring projects, or other research to be designed and conducted by students. For example, a graduate student whose doctoral research was focused on fire ecology worked with high school
biology classes and the local Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to design and conduct experiments on
the effects of a prescribed burn in an area adjacent to their schoolyard. Other graduate students in forestry worked with elementary
school classes to predict and monitor the timing of leafing and flowering of species in their schoolyards in collaboration with Project
Budburst, a national citizen science campaign (www.budburst.org).
The fellows worked with teachers and students to create physical structures on school grounds, in collaboration with other experts
from the university and the community, including nonprofit environmental organizations, artists, landscape architects, and carpenters. These structures serve as continuing resources for teaching and learning about ecology. For example, one school developed
a native plant garden, whereas another built an interpretive nature trail. For a full description of the laboratories created at each
school, see www.bioed.org/ecos/demo.htm.
community members to build ecological learning centers
on the grounds of every ECOS school. The unique fusion
of ecology, art, and creative interdisciplinary collaboration
that characterized the ECOS program embodies a Renaissance scientist ideal.
Tracking the development of Renaissance scientists
at UM and beyond
The UM GK–12 fellows were asked to participate in pre- and
postprogram assessment surveys that included both Likertscale and open-ended questions. The fellows were asked to
rate their levels of teaching, research, and communication
skills or experience and to provide information about their
career goals. They were also asked to respond to open-ended
questions about their expectations of and experiences in the
program.
One year following the end of the GK–12 program
at UM, all of the fellows were contacted and asked to
complete a Web-based survey related to their GK–12
fellowship experience. We also asked all faculty advisers
of GK–12 fellows about their perceptions of the GK–12
experience for their students. The fellows and advisers
also rated the degree to which a series of research, public
communication, and teaching skills were emphasized in
the graduate programs in their departments. Finally, the
fellows were asked to rate the importance of these skills to
their career goals.
For comparative purposes, we also invited the fellows and
advisers from other environmental-science GK–12 programs
to participate in our survey. The principal investigators of
other NSF GK–12 programs that were classified as ecology or environment related (38 programs) were contacted
through e-mail and asked to send the link to our Web-based
surveys to all current and former PhD fellows and to faculty
advisers in their programs. A total of 78 Internet surveys
were completed (44 PhD fellows, 34 advisers), representing
nine universities, including UM.
www.biosciencemag.org Professional growth as teachers
Graduate students who held GK–12 fellowships were likely
to be interested in teaching as a part of their future careers.
Although the fellows indicated a diversity of career goals,
89% indicated that they were interested in a career as a
teaching professor, the most commonly chosen career goal
(table 1). Similarly, 84% of the fellows indicated that they
wished and expected to gain improved teaching skills and
confidence through their fellowship experience—the most
common expected gain (table 2). For example, one fellow
stated, “I hope to gain teaching skills that will eventually
help me in future teaching positions (i.e., college professor).”
Across GK–12 programs, 77% of the fellows indicated that
teaching was extremely important to their career goals (figure 2c). These findings concur with those of Trautmann and
Krasny (2006), who reported that the majority of applicants
to their GK–12 program at Cornell University professed a
keen interest in teaching and were preparing for careers at
colleges or universities where teaching was a top priority.
Improved teaching skills were cited as the primary fellowship benefit by the fellows at UM. In response to an openended survey question about the greatest benefit of their
fellowship experience, 65% of the fellows cited improvements in their skills, knowledge, or confidence with respect
to teaching (table 2). Comparisons of pre- and postfellowship survey data showed significant gains by the fellows in all
aspects of teaching surveyed, including teaching at different
grade levels, curriculum development, teaching methods,
extensions, and assessment and management (table 3). In
particular, there was significant improvement in their skill
levels with inquiry-based teaching strategies (table 3), a key
benefit specifically cited in other GK–12 programs (e.g.,
Thompson et al. 2002, Stamp and O’Brien 2005, Trautmann
and Krasny 2006).
Although most of the fellows reported that their improved
teaching skills made them better teachers, several explained
how their improved teaching skills made them better
June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6 • BioScience 469
Education
scientists. For example, one fellow stated, “One of the greatest benefits was being able to interact with students and
teachers outside of a university setting. This allowed me to
think critically about how I communicate to nonspecialist audiences as a scientist.” Another felt that the greatest
benefit was “learning about education [and] being involved
with people from other disciplines.” Fifty percent of the UM
fellows felt that improved communication and collaborative
skills were the greatest benefits of their ECOS experience
(table 2).
Table 1. Career plans reported before the fellowship by The University of Montana GK–12 fellows.
Career plansa
Number of fellows
Percentage of fellows
Professor teaching at a college or university
24
89
Researcher
22
81
Nonprofit organization member (e.g., Nature Conservancy)
18
67
Government agent
16
59
Private environmental consultant
15
56
Science writer
9
33
Professor teaching at the K–12 level
6
22
Museum curator
5
19
Administrator
3
11
Volunteer (e.g., Peace Corps)
3
11
Private industry or business professional
2
7
Private other consultant
2
7
Note: These data were indicated in beginning-of-year written questionnaires completed by 27 PhD fellows in the first through third years of the
Ecologists, Educators, and Schools program.
a
In response to the instruction, “What are your career plans? Choose as many as apply.”
GK–12, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education
Table 2. Prefellowship expectations and greatest postfellowship benefits reported by The University of Montana GK–12
fellows.
Expected gains or greatest benefitsa
Number of fellows
expecting this gain
Percentage of fellows
expecting this gain
Number of fellows
choosing this gain as
the most important
Percentage of fellows
choosing this gain as
the most important
Improved teaching skills/knowledge/
confidence
21
84
13
65
Renaissance scientist skills (number
of fellows who cited at least one of the
subcategories)
16
64
10
50
Improved communication skills
9
36
6
30
Improved interdisciplinary teamwork/
collaboration
7
28
6
30
Broader ecological knowledge
5
20
0
0
Greater community involvement or more
contacts
1
4
1
5
Creative outlet
1
4
0
0
Enjoyment of working with children
2
8
6
30
Stipend
0
0
1
5
Note: These data were indicated in beginning-of-year written questionnaires completed by 25 PhD fellows and end-of-year written questionnaires
completed by 20 PhD fellows in the first through third years of the Ecologists, Educators, and Schools (ECOS) program. Responses for each column total
more than 25 and 20 (and percentages total more than 100) because some fellows reported more than one expected gain or greatest benefit.
a In response to the questions “What do you hope to gain by participating in the ECOS program?” and “What was the greatest benefit of participating in
the ECOS program?”
GK–12, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education
470 BioScience • June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6
www.biosciencemag.org
Education
The perception of becoming better scientists by becoming
better teachers is a recurrent theme among participants in
the GK–12 programs. For example, the fellows reported that
by having to articulate complex ideas to their students, they
were forced to reflect deeply on fundamental science concepts
and the relationships and logical sequences among them in
ways they never had before (Mitchell et al. 2003, Stamp and
O’Brien 2005, Trautmann and Krasny 2006). Many of them
reported that this experience directly improved their ability
to frame and approach their own research questions and
hypotheses more clearly.
Figure 2. Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education
PhD fellows’ perceptions of the importance of (a) research,
(b) public communication, and (c) teaching to their career
goals (n = 44). The category of research was created by
pooling the following skills: presenting research at scientific
conferences or meetings; publishing in peer-reviewed
journals; developing novel research methods, models, and
analyses; and securing grants. Similarly, the category of
public communication was created by pooling the following
skills: publishing in popular journals or magazines,
presenting research to nonscientific audiences, and
communicating research to policymakers.
www.biosciencemag.org Professional growth as Renaissance scientists
Typically, the UM fellows indicated that they were interested
in a career that valued both teaching and research. Closely
following teaching professor, researcher was the second
most commonly indicated career goal, chosen by 81% of
the fellows (table 1). Many of the fellows expressed a desire
to become equally effective as teachers and researchers. One
fellow aspired “to become an effective biology teacher at all
levels of education, to [develop] better collaborative skills
outside the university environment, [and] to learn research
techniques of other disciplines.” Similarly, another fellow
stated, “I hope to gain skills that will help me secure a job
at a small college, serving as both a biologist and educator.” Across GK–12 programs, the majority of the fellows
expressed the desire to pursue both teaching and research as
main components of their future careers. Of the GK–12 fellows in our national pool, 77% indicated that teaching was
extremely important to their career goals, closely followed by
68% who indicated that research was extremely important
(figure 2a, 2c).
Although the majority of the UM fellows sought to gain
improved skills and confidence specifically related to teaching, 64% explicitly wished to improve their skills as more
well-rounded scholars through improved communication
and collaboration skills (table 2). That is, many desired more
interdisciplinary training that they felt was not available
from their traditional research programs. For example, one
fellow sought “greater communication skills with nonscientific audiences, greater community involvement as a scientist, [and] more experience with teams and team building
with both scientific and nonscientific members.” Similarly,
another fellow wished to develop “[an] ability to disseminate
ecological concepts to children and the lay public in a lasting
manner that increases ecological literacy, improved group/
team skills, [and] improved knowledge on interdisciplinary
approaches.” One fellow even expressed the desire for a “creative outlet” in addition to her traditional research program
(table 2).
Despite initial concerns from the scientific community,
particularly from graduate student advisers, that intensive
involvement in K–12 outreach would detract from graduate
students’ focus on their research, such involvement has been
found to help many graduate students gain knowledge and
skills directly related to their research and expertise in science
June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6 • BioScience 471
Education
as scientists whereas 72% focused
on their growth as teachers (table 4).
This result is surprising, given that
Presurvey
Presurvey
improved teaching was the gain most
a
Knowledge or skill
mean
mean
highly anticipated or expected from
participation in the ECOS program in
Grade levels
the presurvey (table 2).
Teaching ecological topic to elementary school students
2.6
3.8*
In particular, the pre- and postTeaching ecological topics to middle school students
2.4
3.2
fellowship survey data suggested that
Working with a K–12 teacher on an ecology topic
2.3
3.8*
the fellows’ self-perceived skill levels
with numerous aspects of research
Curriculum development
improved significantly over the course
Interpreting science curriculum standards
1.3
3.2*
of the year. Our data revealed significant
Developing a series of lectures on a topic
2.3
2.8
gains in all of the aspects of research
Developing instructional modules on a topic
2.1
3.2*
surveyed, including the utilization of
the scientific method, communication
Developing laboratory investigations
2.8
3.2
with peers, and communication with
Developing instructional simulation models
1.5
2.1
other groups (table 5). Most notably,
Teaching methods
the fellows’ self-perceived skill of comLecturing
3.1
3.3
munication about science to nonscientists improved significantly (table 5),
Leading a discussion
3.3
3.8*
and it was the most commonly menImplementing a classroom research project
2.0
3.7*
tioned skill in the fellows’ descripInquiry-based learning
2.7
3.8*
tions of the nature of their professional
growth as scientists (table 4).
Project-based learning
2.7
3.4
In describing the nature of their
Facilitating student learning rather than direct instruction
2.8
3.6*
professional growth, many of the felIntegrating technology to support student learning
2.3
3.0*
lows focused on how they had become
Extensions
more well-rounded, effective scientists. For example, one fellow stated, “I
Including ongoing research in course instruction
2.4
3.1*
feel I have a much greater capacity to
Connecting biology content to the outside world
3.4
3.8
communicate my research and other
Connecting biology to careers
2.9
3.2
aspects of science to a nonprofesAssessment and management
sional audience than many [of my]
research associates.” Another reflected,
Using educational assessment protocols
1.5
2.4
“I improved in my ability to work as
Using objective tests
2.5
2.7
part of a team and communicate with
Using essay tests
2.3
2.6
others.… I think my patience with
others really grew and I became a betUsing assessment tasks
1.8
2.4
ter listener. And of course, I improved
Using systematic observation of students
1.3
2.3*
in my ability to talk about science in a
Monitoring class participation
2.0
3.1*
way that makes it really exciting,” and
Supervising students/tutors/teaching assistants
3.1
3.5
another stated, “I am better able to discuss my research to broader audiences
Note: These data were indicated in beginning-of-year and end-of-year written questionnaires comand can better interact with profespleted by 18 PhD fellows in the first through third years of the Ecologists, Educators, and Schools
sionals outside my field.” It is apparprogram for whom we had complete pre- and postsurvey data.
a
In response to the instruction “Please indicate the level of skill or experience you have with each
ent that, although the expected gains
of the following compared to your peers” (0, none; 1, minimal; 2, slightly below average; 3, slightly
in teaching were indeed realized, the
above average; 4, well above average; 5, expert).
fellows’ less-anticipated gains in their
GK–12, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education
abilities as scientists were the more
*p < .05, paired t-test.
profound and surprising outcome of
their UM GK–12 experience.
(Williams 2002, Trautmann and Krasny 2006, Moskal et al.
These results corroborate evidence from GK–12 pro2007). In response to an open-ended survey question about
grams across the country—namely, that fellows emerge
the nature of their professional growth in the UM GK–12 profrom their experience as better scientists. Rather than
gram, 83% of the fellows focused primarily on their growth
serving only as experts in the narrow subfield of their
Table 3. Changes in The University of Montana GK–12 fellows’ self-reported
knowledge and skills related to teaching.
472 BioScience • June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6
www.biosciencemag.org
Education
Table 4. Postfellowship reflections of The University of Montana GK–12 fellows on the nature of their professional
growth.
Skilla
Number of fellows
Percentage of fellows
15
83
11
61
Improved interdisciplinary teamwork or collaboration skills
6
33
Broader ecological knowledge
1
6
Greater community involvement or more contacts
1
6
Greater confidence/sense of purpose as a scientist
1
6
13
72
Renaissance scientist skills (number of fellows who cited at
least one of the subcategories)
Improved communication skills
Improved teaching skills/knowledge/confidence
Note: These data were indicated in end-of-year written questionnaires completed by 18 PhD fellows in the first through third years of the Ecologists,
Educators, and Schools (ECOS) program. The responses total more than 18 (and the percentages total more than 100) because some fellows reported
more than one aspect of their professional growth.
a In response to the question “What was the nature of your professional growth as part of the ECOS program over the academic year?”
GK–12, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education
Table 5. Changes in The University of Montana GK–12 fellows’ self-reported knowledge and skills with respect to research.
Knowledge or skilla
Presurvey mean
Postsurvey mean
Developing scientific hypotheses
3.6
3.7
Defending a research hypothesis or approach
3.3
3.7
Evaluating arguments based on scientific evidence
3.3
3.8*
Presenting a seminar on your research topic
3.6
4.2*
Presenting a poster on your research topic
3.5
4.1*
Communicating about science to peers
3.4
3.7
Working on research team in your disciplinary area
3.8
3.8
Working on interdisciplinary research teams
3.3
3.6
Communicating about science to nonscientists
3.5
4.1*
Scientific method
Communicating with scientific peers
Communicating with other groups
Note: These data were indicated in beginning-of-year and end-of-year written questionnaires completed by 18 PhD fellows in the first through third
years of the Ecologists, Educators, and Schools program for whom we had complete pre- and postsurvey data.
a In response to the instruction “Please indicate the level of skill or experience you have with each of the following compared to your peers” (0, none; 1,
minimal; 2, slightly below average; 3, slightly above average; 4, well above average; 5, expert).
GK–12, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education
*p < .05, paired t-test.
research, GK–12 fellows have found that they can also
serve effectively as science generalists, which they felt
made them better scientists overall by requiring an
understanding of the broader scientific context of their
work, a conceptual understanding of other fields, and the
ability to communicate about it (Thompson et al. 2002,
Stamp and O’Brien 2005). The fellows also reported gaining broader perspectives on their fields of expertise by
developing teaching strategies with graduate students
from other disciplines (Trautmann and Krasny 2006) and
www.biosciencemag.org by having to communicate about science in more widely
understandable language and in an interdisciplinary
context (Mitchell et al. 2003, Stamp and O’Brien 2005,
Trautmann and Krasny 2006). In addition, the fellows
identified increased publication and presentation experience, grant-writing experience, greater visibility and
recognition within their departments, and enhanced thesis opportunities as important outcomes of their GK–12
experience, similar to the outcomes reported by Moskal
and colleagues (2007).
June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6 • BioScience 473
Education
Similar results of fellows identifying themselves as more
effective, conversant, and collaborative scientists have been
reported by programs other than GK–12, including NSF’s
IGERT program (e.g., Heg et al. 2004, Carney et al. 2006,
Graybill et al. 2006). For example, the greatest benefits of
the IGERT experience, according to the IGERT fellows,
included learning how to understand different perspectives, work habits, and techniques; how to compromise and
use each other’s particular skills; and how to communicate
effectively among people with varying vocabularies and
worldviews (Heg et al. 2004). Most of the IGERT fellows felt
strongly that the collaborative team projects provided them
with skills needed in the outside world (e.g., Heg et al. 2004,
Carney et al. 2006, Graybill et al. 2006).
A difference in perception between fellows and
advisers
Comparisons of the GK–12 fellows’ and faculty advisers’
responses across campuses in our surveys revealed areas of
agreement, as well as some surprising mismatches, in perceptions regarding the breadth of their graduate programs.
The GK–12 fellows and faculty advisers agreed in their
perception that research was strongly emphasized in their
graduate programs (figure 3a, 3b). Both groups also agreed
in their perception that enhancing public communication
skills was only somewhat emphasized or not emphasized at
all (figure 3c, 3d). However, there was a surprising mismatch
in the fellows’ and advisers’ perceptions of the emphasis on
teaching (figure 3e, 3f). Although 62% of the advisers perceived that teaching was strongly emphasized, only 22% of
the fellows perceived such an emphasis (figure 3e, 3f). What
did the graduate students think should be emphasized in
their programs? Of course, research was very important, but
the students felt that more emphasis was needed on teaching and communicating with the public, because these skills
were very important to their future career goals and to the
advancement of science itself (figure 2a–2c).
Implications for graduate education
Doctoral education in the natural sciences follows a long
tradition of producing independent research specialists who
are able to carry out rigorous scientific studies and make
important contributions to academic research. This goal
has typically been achieved by coupling coursework with
research under the supervision of an established scientist.
Despite its historical success, it has become increasingly
evident that this model may not be sufficient to provide
students with the range of relevant real-world skills necessary to succeed in today’s dynamic and highly competitive
work environment, both within academia and beyond. More
important, the increasingly complex and urgent nature of
our global environmental issues (e.g., NRC 2009) necessitates that environmental-science graduates be able to make
substantive contributions as highly engaged, team-oriented
participants in environmental research that cuts across traditional disciplinary boundaries (Lowman et al. 2009, NRC
474 BioScience • June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6
Figure 3. Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education PhD
fellows’ (n = 44, left column) and advisers’ (n = 34, right
column) perceptions of the emphasis on research (a and b),
public communication (c and d), and teaching (e and f)
in their graduate programs. The category of research was
created by pooling the following skills: presenting research at
scientific conferences or meetings; publishing in peer-reviewed
journals; developing novel research methods, models, and
analyses; and securing grants. Similarly, the category of public
communication was created by pooling the following skills:
publishing in popular journals or magazines, presenting
research to nonscientific audiences, and communicating
research to policymakers.
www.biosciencemag.org
Education
2009). We argue that these needs call for the revival and
reenvisioning of the Renaissance scientist ideal (figure 1b).
Rather than graduates who reflect the hyperspecialist
model of graduate training (figure 1c), research challenges
in the life sciences in general, and in the environmental sciences in particular, call for graduates who are trained to use
multidisciplinary, collaborative approaches in order to create new knowledge and to address complex problems. The
findings from the UM GK–12 program and other programs
across the country indicate that PhD students are highly
aware of this need and are seeking to develop these skills.
Citing insufficient opportunities within their own departments and degree programs, graduate students have recognized that approaches such as the GK–12 program provide
an opportunity for them to receive real pedagogical training
and engagement in the scholarship of teaching. However,
the GK–12 program is only one of many possible ways to
help graduate students learn how to teach (e.g., Trautmann
2008). Such intensive fellowships cannot feasibly be offered
to more than a small fraction of prospective future faculty,
but lessons learned from programs like GK–12 could be
extended to other forms of graduate student training aimed
at developing teaching skills. Campus teaching assistantships
and related professional development courses or seminars,
for example, could offer students the opportunity to explore
diverse teaching strategies through developing, implementing, and evaluating lesson ideas under the guidance of experienced mentors (e.g., Brewer et al. 2011).
As important, graduate programs such as GK–12 and
IGERT offer opportunities for students to develop more
fully as scientists in ways that more traditional research programs often do not provide. Across the United States, graduate students are emerging from their fellowship experiences
with broader, more interdisciplinary perspectives on their
fields of expertise and improved communication, teamwork, and collaboration skills. These skills are invaluable at
a time when solutions to complex environmental problems
are likely to occur in the areas of overlap rather than within
the boundaries of traditional disciplines. Indeed, these programs provide students with larger, deeper toolkits of skills,
in addition to research and disciplinary expertise, that will
enable them to contribute more effectively as Renaissance
scientists of the twenty-first century.
However, these programs typically comprise only one or
two years of a PhD student’s graduate training. Although
approaches like the GK–12 program have been implemented
on many campuses, the core programs are still lacking in
broader pedagogical elements. If the significant positive
impacts reported in the UM and other programs are to be
realized and sustained beyond individual fellowship experiences, the Renaissance scientist ideal must become an integral
part of graduate training and a fundamental goal of scientific
training. Lessons learned from the GK–12 and other innovative graduate programs offer insights on how we might begin
to effect these changes. Primary departments could strive to
emulate the culture inherent in these programs: one in which
www.biosciencemag.org transdisciplinary thought is embraced, collaboration is supported, and the diverse pathways that graduates take to make
professional contributions are honored.
Reenvisioning and reorienting our graduate programs
toward the twenty-first century Renaissance scientist ideal
would benefit all students, regardless of their future career
trajectories. Graduates of such programs will have skills that
ensure that they can think critically and creatively, communicate with others, and be intellectually flexible in whatever
career they pursue. More importantly, they will have developed the skills they need as citizens to look at questions of
local, national, and global concern and to make informed
decisions that can potentially affect us all. The scientific
enterprise itself could greatly benefit from graduate students
trained as Renaissance scientists, who can communicate to
broad audiences the value of science and its appropriate applications to the complex problems that face society today.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Science Foundation
Grant 03-38165 to CAB. We are grateful to all of The University of Montana fellows, teachers, and their students, as well
as to all of the supportive graduate advisers. We also thank
respondents from GK–12 programs at Arkansas State University, Michigan State University, Montana State University,
The Ohio State University, University of Arizona, University
of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, and University of
Toledo for their participation in our survey. We also thank
Diane Smith for her insightful comments during the preparation of the manuscript.
References cited
Austin AE. 2002. Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school
as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education
73: 94–122.
Brewer CA. 2002a. Conservation education partnerships in schoolyard
laboratories: A call back to action. Conservation Biology 16: 577–579.
———. 2002b. Outreach and partnership programs for conservation
education where endangered species conservation and research occur.
Conservation Biology 16: 4–6.
Brewer CA, Maki D. 2005. Building the Renaissance team. Pages 45–40 in
Steen LA, ed. Math & Bio 2010: Linking Undergraduate Disciplines. The
Mathematical Association of America.
Brewer CA, et al. 2011. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. American Association for the Advancement
of Science. (25 March 2011; http://visionandchange.org/files/2010/03/
VC_report.pdf ).
Bricker M. 2009. Plants on the move: Upper-elementary students consider
seed dispersal and test how far different types of seeds travel on the
wind. Science and Children 46: 24–28.
Campbell SP, Fuller AK, Patrick DAG. 2005. Looking beyond research in doctoral education. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 153–160.
Carney J, Chawla D, Wiley A, Young D. 2006. Evaluation of the initial
impacts of the National Science Foundation’s Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship program. Report no. nsf0617.
(18 March 2011; www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0617/nsf0617_1.pdf )
Ehrlich PR. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental
ethics. BioScience 52: 31–43.
Ferreira MM. 2007. The development of a learning community through a
university–school district partnership. School Community Journal 17:
95–112.
June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6 • BioScience 475
Education
Fontaine TJ, Decker KL. 2009. Exploring predation and animal coloration
through outdoor activity. Science Activities 45: 3–8.
Graybill JK, Dooling S, Shandas V, Withey J, Greve A, Simon GL. 2006. A
rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. BioScience 56: 757–763.
Heg D, Nerad M, Blumenfeld T. 2004. Innovation in PhD training: An
IGERT at the University of Washington mid-term program evaluation.
(18 March 2011; http://depts.washington.edu/cirgeweb/c/wp-content/
uploads/2008/07/innovation-in-phd-training.pdf )
Leshner AI. 2007. Outreach training needed. Science 315: 161.
Lowman M. 2006. Fostering partnerships between regional government and
ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 547–548.
Lowman M, D’Avanzo C, Brewer CA. 2009. A national ecological network
for research and education. Science 323: 1172–1173.
Lubchenco J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social
contract for science. Science 279: 491–497.
Lubchenco J, Mooney HA, Risser PG, Van Alstyne KL, Vergun JR. 1998. The
Aldo Leopold leadership program. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
America 79: 232–234.
Mitchell J, Levine R, Gonzalez R, Bitter C, Webb N, White P. 2003. Evaluation of the National Science Foundation Graduate Teaching Fellows
in K–12 Education (GK–12) Program. American Educational Research
Association. Report no. ERIC ED478204.
Moskal BM, Skokan C, Kosbar L, Dean A, Westland C, Barker H, Nguyen
Q, Tafoya J. 2007. K–12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts
of four outreach programs. Journal of Engineering Education 96:
173–189.
[NRC] National Research Council. 2003. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. National Academies
Press.
———. 2009. A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United
States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution. National Academies
Press.
[NSF] National Science Foundation. 2011. NSF GK–12 Graduate Stem
Fellows in K–12 Education (GK–12) Program. (25 March 2011; www.
gk12.org/about/)
Palmer MA, et al. 2005. Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st
century. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 4–11.
Piotrowski J, Mildenstein T, Dungan K, Brewer C. 2007. The radish party:
Success takes root in an exploration of soil organic matter. Science and
Children 45: 41–45.
Pruitt-Logan AS, Gaff JG, Jentoft JE. 2002. Preparing Future Faculty in the
Sciences and Mathematics: A Guide for Change. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Richmond RH, Rongo T, Golbuu Y, Victor S, Idechong N, Davis G, Kostka
W, Neth L, Hamnett M, Wolanksi E. 2007. Watersheds and coral reefs:
Conservation science, policy, and implementation. BioScience 57:
598–607.
Stamp T, O’Brien T. 2005. GK–12 partnership: A model to advance change
in science education. BioScience 55: 70–77.
Thompson SL, Collins A, Metzgar V, Joeston MD, Shepherd V. 2002. Exploring graduate-level scientists’ participation in a sustained K–12 teaching
collaboration. School Science and Mathematics 102: 254–265.
Trautmann NM. 2008. Learning to teach: Alternatives to trial by fire.
Change 40: 40–45.
Trautmann NM, Krasny ME. 2006. Integrating teaching and research: A
new model for graduate education? BioScience 56: 159–165.
Whiteley AR, Woolfe J, Kennedy K, Oberbillig D, Brewer CA. 2007. Classroom
mark-recapture with crickets. American Biology Teacher 69: 292–297.
Williams VL. 2002. Merging University Students into K–12 Science Education Reform. Science and Technology Policy Institute.
Brooke Baldauf McBride ([email protected]) is with the College
of Forestry and Conservation, and Carol A. Brewer, Mary Bricker, and Michael
Machura are with the Division of Biological Sciences, at The University of
Montana, in Missoula.
Epigenetics
Linking Genotype and Phenotype in Development and Evolution
BENEDIKT HALLGRÍMSSON and BRIAN K. HALL, Editors
“If you want to understand evolution, you need to understand
the murky world of epigenetics. A hearty congratulations
should be paid to Hallgrimsson and Hall, who provide reliable
and steady illumination.”
—Bernard Wood, Center for the Advanced Study of
Hominid Paleobiology, George Washington University
This volume offers a broad integrative survey of epigenetics.
Approaching this complex subject from a variety of perspectives,
it presents an historically grounded view that demonstrates
the utility of this approach for understanding complex biological
systems in development, disease, and evolution.
$85.00 at bookstores or www.ucpress.edu
476 BioScience • June 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 6
www.biosciencemag.org