Chemistry for Everyone

Communicating Science to the Public W

through a University–Museum Partnership
Amy C. Payne,*† Wendy A. deProphetis, and Arthur B. Ellis
Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706; *ACPayne@matcmadison.edu

Thomas G. Derenne
Discovery World Museum, Milwaukee, WI 53233

Greta M. Zenner and Wendy C. Crone

Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706

Motivation for the Program focus on content-rich lectures and skill acquisition, whereas
science centers emphasize the “wow” factor to inspire and
In the spring of 2002, the University of Wisconsin (UW) motivate visitors to learn more on their own. Table 1 lists
Internships in Public Science Education (IPSE) program be- further strengths and resources of each partner in a point-
gan as a way to connect audiences of all ages to scientific by-point comparison, emphasizing the complementary na-
expertise and cutting-edge research that might not otherwise ture of this collaboration.
be available to them. Graduate and undergraduate interns UW MRSEC conducts research in the formation, char-
designed hands-on, interactive activities that use basic science acterization, and exploitation of materials at the nanoscale.
concepts to explain cutting-edge nanotechnology concepts. Understanding topics of substantial technological importance
The UW IPSE program is a National Science Foundation and communicating this understanding to the public are the
(NSF)-funded collaboration between the UW Materials Re- Center’s fundamental goals. Devoted to the latter objective,
search Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) on Nano- the Interdisciplinary Education Group within UW MRSEC
structured Materials and Interfaces, and Discovery World, has developed a broad range of educational materials about
The James Lovell Museum of Science, Economics, and Tech- advanced materials science and nanotechnology. These ma-
nology (DW) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Discovery World is terials provided the foundation for the technical training of
Wisconsin’s largest science center. UW IPSE students.
The UW MRSEC and DW partnership addresses a call
made recently by the National Research Council in Beyond
the Molecular Frontier, which posits that in order to increase Table 1. Strengths and Resources of Partners
effective communication of science, scientists must expand in a University–Science Center Collaboration
their working networks to include individuals from other sec- Universitya Science Centerb
tors, such as industry, government, and the public (1). Sev-
eral groups have done this through the development of MFormal, structured, MInformal, “non-linear” learning,
museum exhibits (2, 3) and educational programs (4), but M“linear” learning, M“Wow” factor
few examples exist of this type of interdisciplinary, cross-sec- Massessment
tor outreach effort that highlights cutting-edge research. MDeep knowledge of MBroad knowledge of science
The UW–DW IPSE collaboration has resulted in an in- Mscience content Mcontent
novative program using the strengths of each partner to bring
cutting-edge science to the public. In the process, the UW MKnowledge of current MKnowledge of communicating
Mresearch advances Mscience to the public
IPSE interns received technical training and engaged in an
iterative project development process as they gained experi- MDevelopment of MDevelopment of presentation
ence in communicating science; the public developed a better Mexperiment and Mand exhibit packaging
understanding of and appreciation for nanoscale science, tech- Mdemonstration content
nology, and engineering.
MAccess to research and MAccess to science center facilities
Mlibrary facilities
The Partnership
MConnections to other MConnections to business leaders,
The different cultures and pedagogical philosophies of Macademic institutions Mcommunity leaders, museum
universities and science centers provide a rich environment Mnetworks, K–12 school system
for sharing expertise when joined in a partnership like UW MExperience with public MExperience with marketing and
IPSE, whose two collaborators each contributed knowledge Mgranting agencies (e.g., Mgraphics design
and experience unique to their institutional backgrounds. For MNSF)
example, with regard to teaching and learning, universities
MAccess to interns, MAccess to K–12 teachers, youth
Mfaculty experts Mand community groups
† a
Current address: Madison Area Technical College, Truax University of Wisconsin–Madison Materials Research Science and
Campus, Madison, WI 53704-2599. Engineering Center; bDiscovery World.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005 • Journal of Chemical Education 743

 Chemistry for Everyone

While UW MRSEC offered the interns technical train- Program Structure

ing and educational materials, DW helped them improve
their understanding of the informal science education pro-
cess and gain access to the public, including students and
teachers. Approximately 150,000 children and adults, more
than 40% of whom are school children and teachers, visit
this Milwaukee attraction each year. While at the science cen-
ter, patrons can participate in various labs and activities, tour
the exhibit floors, and see live theatrical science shows.
Through its regular interaction with teachers and school dis-
tricts, DW has developed a network of teacher contacts. This
proved to be an important resource for UW IPSE activity
development and outreach efforts. The Milwaukee science
center also contributed resources (including experts in graphic
design and public science education) to the internship pro-
gram. In keeping with the collaborative nature of the part-
nership, personnel from DW and UW MRSEC comprised a
lead team that met on a regular basis to oversee the UW IPSE
program.
The Program
UW IPSE focused on enhancing the technical back-
ground, science communication skills, teamwork skills, and
leadership skills of its graduate and undergraduate interns,
while simultaneously educating the general public and stu-
dent populations about nanoscale science and technology
through hands-on, interactive activities. To achieve this, it
was important to have motivated interns who cared about
science education and communication.
The Interview
Graduate and undergraduate interns were recruited from
a variety of disciplines at colleges in the Madison and Mil-
waukee areas. Interviews occurred at the beginning of the
spring semester in the first year of the program and at the
beginning of the academic year in subsequent years. Approxi-
mately 50% of the applicants were accepted into the pro-
gram in the first two years. Table 2 indicates the number of
applications received, the number of interviews given, the
number of interviewees hired, and the demographic infor-
mation about the applicants and interns. See the Supplemen-
tal MaterialW for example interview questions.
Each intern was hired for an academic year and expected
to commit an average of 10 hours per week to the program.
Graduate students received a financial amount equivalent to
a 25% project assistantship appointment, and undergradu-
ate students were paid by the hour. At the beginning of the
first semester, interns were divided into teams that were de-
voted to creating activities and materials to help the public
learn more about various aspects of nanotechnology. The first
half of the year focused on “research and development,” where
interns learned background information, received technical
and communication training, and developed activities and
demonstrations. The second semester was dedicated to imple-
mentation and assessment of the materials developed.
Throughout the activity development process, the iterative
process of editing, assessing, and refining was stressed.
During the first semester, UW IPSE interns attended pro-
fessional development days (PDDs), where they expanded
their communication skills and knowledge of nanotechnology
and advanced materials. These training sessions were led by
UW MRSEC faculty, postdoctoral associates, and graduate
students, and DW staff and educators. Examples of PDD ac-
tivities include learning about classroom and audience man-
agement; practicing presentation and communication skills;
performing nanoscale experiments from the Center’s Web-
based laboratory manual (see Figure 1) (5); learning how to
give UW MRSEC demonstrations; and receiving feedback on
intern-developed activities from other interns, educators,
museum staff, and Center personnel.

Table 2. UW IPSE Program Applicant Statistics

%Data Categories First Year MSecond Year

%Applications Received 30% 27%

%Interviews Given 26% 19%

%Applicants Accepted 16% 12%

%Female Applicants (%) 67% 70%

%Female Interns (%) 69% 75%

%Non-UW Interns (%) 13% %0%

Figure 1. Intern synthesizing ferrofluid during a professional devel-
%Graduate Student Interns 10% 5
opment day at UW–Madison. (Photograph taken by Amy C. Payne.)

744 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Revised Program Structure
Based on the feedback of interns and observations made
by the UW IPSE staff, the program was modified after the
first year. Changes included increasing the amount of train-
ing in activity and demonstration development, defining the
program’s goals and structure more clearly, including more
interaction with children and students, and improving com-
munication between staff and interns. To address these is-
sues, the UW IPSE staff revised a mission statement for the
program and created syllabi that detailed the expectations,
goals, and events for the fall and spring semesters (see the
Supplemental MaterialW). The new program structure also
added a “What is nano?” group project (Figure 2). Additional
changes to the program structure included smaller teams con-
sisting of pairs of students, an assigned mentor for each team,
and an increased focus on professional development. For the
fall semester, the number of PDDs was doubled to alternat-
ing weeks.
During the second semester of year two, PDDs and bi-
weekly meetings were replaced with weekly, one-hour long
meetings where staff and interns communicated about their
outreach experiences or upcoming events. Interns were also
given a leadership task—a major event (e.g., an educator work-
shop) that they were responsible for organizing. Finally, each
team was required to write an informative 1000-word article
for a general audience related to their team activity topic.
“What Is Nano?” Activity Example:
How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes?
One “nano” activity compares the diameter of a
human hair to the diameter of a carbon nanotube. The
activity helps a range of audiences develop an appre-
ciation for the scale of the nanometer, specifically as it
relates to a carbon nanotube.
After discussing the definition of “nano” (and other
metric prefixes) and measuring various objects in the
room, participants construct a circle of rope 4 m in di-
ameter. The educator explains that the diameter of the
circle represents the diameter of a single human hair,
~40 µm, if it were magnified 100,000 times. Several
cylindrical objects (e.g., a wrapping paper tube, pencil,
birthday candle, toothpick, and pencil lead) are placed
in the center of the rope circle, and the educator asks
the participants to decide which object represents the
relative size of a single carbon nanotube magnified
100,000 times.
The educator explains that a nanotube is approxi-
mately 4 nm in diameter and a strand of human hair is
approximately 40,000 nm, and then asks the participants
Figure 2. Description of an activity, How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes?, which is one of several developed by IPSE to explore “What is
nano?”. The photograph shows an intern leading the activity with K–12 teachers at Discovery World in Milwaukee, WI.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005
Chemistry for Everyone
The Group Project
During fall 2002, all interns participated in a UW IPSE
group project. There were four goals for this portion of the
program: to increase the interns’ comfort level with working
in a collaborative environment; to facilitate learning about
nanotechnology; to help the interns learn how to engage a
variety of audiences about nanotechnology; and to help the
interns learn about developing interactive activities.
The theme for the group project was “What is nano?”
Interns worked individually and as a group to develop a set
of activities explaining the concept of the nanoscale. Each
intern was randomly assigned a target audience and asked
to create an activity that would help his or her target audi-
ence comprehend the nanoscale. The target audiences ranged
from kindergarteners to grandparents, and different educa-
tional backgrounds and experiences were considered. For an
example of a “What is nano?” activity, see Figure 2. At sub-
sequent PDDs, interns engaged in an iterative process of de-
velopment by discussing their ideas with other interns; lead
team members offered comments. Once the interns ex-
panded their ideas, wrote them down, and revised them ac-
cording to small group peer review, they handed them over
to another intern, who finished writing and revising the ac-
tivity. The whole process was facilitated by group discussions
about nanotechnology and appropriate knowledge levels for
different audiences.
(Photograph taken by Amy C. Payne.)
to determine which object in the center of the rope circle repre-
sents the relative size of a carbon nanotube. (The answer is 0.4
mm, or the diameter of pencil lead.) Through the activity, students
learn about the scale of nanotechnology while reviewing the met-
ric system, ratios, and conversions. See ref 6 for more details.
• Journal of Chemical Education 745
 Chemistry for Everyone

Team Activity Examples: Communicating Nanotechnology

Welcome to Nanoville!

The Societal Implications teams created role-playing activities that encourage participants to explore the potential le-
gal, ethical, political, and social implications of nanotechnology (7). One activity illustrates the connections among technol-
ogy, society, and the law-making process when the participants explore the impact of nanotechnology on a fictitious city,
Nanoville (8). Participants role-play as lawmakers for Nanoville who must decide whether to pass a bill that would affect the
town’s primary industry—car manufacturing. The bill would require local automobile manufacturers to use clay nanoparticle
composite parts to build new cars. The participants are divided into groups and assigned a social group identity, such as
environmentalists, local industry and business leaders, health and safety workers, Nanoville residents, or nanocomposite
manufacturers. Adhering to the interests of its assigned identity, each group discusses and presents its views on the potential
impact of the proposed law to the class. To conclude the activity, the participants vote on the bill and discuss the effect that
decision will have on the residents of Nanoville.

Forms of Carbon

The Forms of Carbon team designed a series of activities to introduce two allotropes of carbon, fullerenes and nanotubes,
and to compare them to well-known allotropes—graphite and diamond (9). These allotropes represent different dimensional
forms of carbon and allow connections between structure and properties to be introduced to the audience along with impor-
tant nanotechnology materials. Flat graphene sheets, composed of carbon atoms in a hexagonal pattern, can be related to
the carbon nanotube and the soccer-ball-shaped fullerene structure. In their activities, students can, for example, build a
model of a fullerene or simulate testing the lubrication and tensile strength properties of each of the forms of carbon. The
team also developed an item for the students to take home with them—a pencil with the structure of a carbon nanotube
printed around its circumference. After learning to classify carbon nanotubes according to their structure (zig-zag, armchair,
or chiral) and related properties (conductive, semi-conductive, or insulating), participants identify the type of carbon nanotube
printed on their pencil. See below for examples of the pencils.

(A) By examining the pattern of hexagons

around the circumference of a nanotube
structure modeled by the patterned pencil,
two (of the three) classes of nanotube struc-
tures can be distinguished.

(B) Actual pencils modeling armchair (top)

and zig-zag (bottom) carbon nanotube struc-
tures.

Figure 3. Description of two of the team activities.

746 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org


The Team Activity
One of the interns’ primary goals was to work with their
team to create a 45-minute, interactive activity appropriate
for a middle-school audience. Each activity addressed a topic
related to nanotechnology, ranging from the societal impli-
cations of nanotechnology to the structure and properties of
carbon nanotubes (Figure 2). At the beginning of the year,
the interns were paired based on their educational back-
grounds and topic preferences. Undergraduates were paired
with graduate students, and students with less technical back-
grounds were paired with students with more technical back-
grounds (Table 3). The interns gained valuable experience
and training by working in these interdisciplinary teams.
After drafting the first version of their activities using a
standardized format, the teams led their activities with sev-
eral different audiences, including teachers and peers, to get
feedback and make revisions before taking them into the class-
room, museum, or community center. In the second semes-
ter of the program, each team was asked to lead its activity
on at least six different days, evaluate its effectiveness, and
make appropriate modifications after each presentation. See
Figure 3 for examples.
Assessment
The formal evaluation of the UW IPSE program com-
prises two key components: assessment of the interns’ experi-
ences and assessment of the educators’ and youth organization
leaders’ experiences with the interns and their activities.
Interns
The goals for intern assessment included gathering feed-
back about the interns’ expectations of the program, the struc-
ture and administration of the program, and the impact of
the program. Several methods were used, including attitudinal
pre- and post-surveys, monthly online progress surveys, and
videotaped performance assessments. All survey instruments
and protocols were developed in consultation with the UW
Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemina-
tion (LEAD) Center and approved by the UW Human Sub-
jects Institutional Review Board.
Interns completed attitudinal surveys at the beginning
(pre-survey), mid-point (not reported here), and end (post-
survey) of the second year. Although both the first and sec-
ond year of the UW ISPE program are discussed above, only
the second year has both pre- and post-surveys, and thus only
the second-year results will be presented here. In addition,
12 responses were obtained for the pre-survey data compared
to nine responses for the post-survey because three interns
left during the year. Only the responses of those interns that
completed the program are included in the following analy-
sis. Although responses to the surveys were anonymous, each
intern recorded the same self-selected identifying code on
his or her surveys, making it easy to identify and remove
the pre-surveys of those interns who did not complete the
program.
As an aside, each intern who left the program early com-
pleted an exit interview with UW IPSE staff. These inter-
views revealed that reasons for leaving the program fell into
two categories: time management issues (overextended) and
www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005
Chemistry for Everyone
Table 3. Relationship between Activity Content and
Disciplinary Expertise of Participating Interns
Team Activity Corresponding Intern Disciplines
Exploring the Nanoworld Food science, microbiology,
biomolecular chemistry, zoology
Ferrofluid Secondary education, food
science
Giant Magnetoresistance Physics, electrical engineering,
(GMR) computer engineering,
biomechanical engineering
Nanolithography Journalism, secondary education,
mechanical engineering
Nanotechnology Badge Industrial engineering, Spanish,
for Youth Organizations genetics
(e.g., Girl Scouts)
New Forms of Carbon Nuclear engineering, chemistry,
genetics, industrial engineering
Societal Implications of History of science, computer
Nanotechnology science, psychology, math,
chemical engineering, food
science
travel issues. (The one-hour commute between Madison and
Milwaukee was described as too time-consuming.)
The pre- and post-surveys aimed to quantify changes in
the interns’ perceived knowledge of science and technology,
their comfort with teaching others about science and tech-
nology, and their communication skills as a result of partici-
pating in the UW IPSE program. Interns were asked to rate
themselves on these and other topics prior to their UW IPSE
experience (pre-survey rating). At the end of their internship,
the interns were asked to rate themselves on the same topics
before (post-survey “before” rating) and after (post-survey
“after” rating) participating in the program.
Data from the pre- and post-surveys indicate that the
interns felt they increased their knowledge in all topic areas
surveyed (Table 4), which included general science and tech-
nology, advanced materials, nanotechnology, their team ac-
tivity topic, the mission and methodology of science museums,
and public science education. The topic area with the greatest
improvement was their team activity topic. This increase is
likely due to the interns’ intense focus on their team topic
throughout the year, which included writing an article that
would be appropriate for a popular science magazine and re-
peatedly leading their team activity with K–12 students, edu-
cators, and the public. The area with the least improvement
in knowledge level was general science and technology. The
relatively small increase likely results from interns’ initial as-
sessment that they began the program with a high level of
knowledge about general science and technology, evident in
the interns’ 4.11 average rating in the pre-survey (Table 4).
It is important to note that these are perceived gains in
knowledge levels and not actual gains. The interns completed
attitudinal surveys about how much they believed they in-
creased their understanding of these various topics; they did
not take pre- and post-tests that would have assessed whether
• Journal of Chemical Education 747
 Chemistry for Everyone

they had actually increased their knowledge levels. While this
approach may provide an incomplete summary of the
program’s effect on participants’ learning, a traditional pre-
and post-test would have been difficult to administer given
that each team of interns investigated such different topics.
However, the attitudinal surveys still prove valuable because
they provide an impression of the interns’ gains in these areas.
Comfort level with teaching others about a subject is one
indicator of change in the interns’ communication skills. It
was believed that the more comfortable interns felt teaching
a topic, the more effectively they could communicate impor-
tant scientific concepts. Data from the pre- and post-surveys
indicate that the interns increased their comfort level with
teaching others about select topics, including general science
and technology, advanced materials, nanotechnology, and their
team activity topic (Table 5). Interestingly, at the end of year,
the interns still felt more comfortable speaking about general
science and technology (4.44) than advanced materials (4.00),
nanotechnology (4.22), and their team topic (4.00), even
though the program emphasis was on the latter topics. The
overall improvement in “comfort level in teaching others
about general science and technology” was smaller than the
other topics areas surveyed because the interns had a reason-
ably high comfort level in this area prior to participating in
UW IPSE. Nevertheless, an improvement in this area may
indicate that the skills learned while communicating with
others about advanced materials and nanotechnology are
transferable to the more general topics of science and tech-
nology.
It is interesting to note that the average post-survey “be-
fore” ratings (except “knowledge of advanced materials”) are
lower than the corresponding pre-survey ratings collected at
Table 4. Interns’ Pre- and Post-Survey Responses
Regarding Topical Knowledge
Topic Area Pre-Survey Post-Survey Post-Survey
Rating “Before” Rating “After” Rating
the beginning of the year (Tables 4 and 5). That the average
pre-survey and post-survey “before” ratings are different is
not surprising. It is doubtful that the interns would remem-
ber their pre-survey response after 10 months had passed, and
they may have held inflated beliefs about their knowledge
and comfort levels at the beginning of the year. A review of
the change in individual pre-survey and post-survey “before”
ratings revealed that almost all interns rated themselves the
same or lower in the post-survey “before.” Some interns may
have rated their prior knowledge more severely at the end of
the program, having realized how little they knew at the be-
ginning of the program relative to how much they learned
during their internship. These inconsistencies raise the ques-
tion as to which data sets are appropriate for comparison.
Consultation with the LEAD Center made it clear that given
that the interns provided the post-survey “after” rating with
respect to the post-survey “before” rating, it is most appro-
priate to compare these two ratings.
The interns also reported gains in skills related to pub-
lic science education, including developing age-appropriate
materials, creating a demonstration, communicating science
topics to non-technical audiences, working effectively in
teams, and interacting with K–12 students (Table 6). Of these
skills, the interns indicated that their greatest improvements
were in the areas of communicating science topics to non-
technical audiences and interacting with K–12 students. This
likely resulted from the fact that these two skills were em-
phasized throughout the year in all of the interns’ tasks, in-
cluding giving museum presentations, writing a science article
for a lay audience, participating in teacher in-service train-
ing sessions, and writing and leading activities for students.
Two of the other skills—creating a demonstration and de-
veloping age-appropriate presentations—played a large role
in the internship, but the interns also had other responsibili-
ties, such as writing the article and organizing an event, and
thus showed less improvement. In addition, the relatively
small change for working in teams probably was due to the
interns rating themselves highly (4.33) at the beginning the
program.

General 4.11 3.89 4.44

science and
technology Table 5. Interns’ Pre- and Post-Survey Responses
Regarding Teaching Others
Advanced 2.44 2.56 3.56
materials Topic Area Pre-Survey Post-Survey Post-Survey
Rating “Before” Rating “After” Rating
Nano- 2.44 2.33 4.11
technology NGeneral 4.11 3.44 4.44
Nscience and
Team project 2.25 1.89 4.22 Ntechnology
topic area
NAdvanced 2.89 2.33 4.00
Mission and 2.33 1.67 3.56 Nmaterials
methodology
of science NNano- 2.89 2.56 4.22
museums Ntechnology

Public science 2.56 2.22 3.67 NTeam project 2.88 2.11 4.00
education Ntopic area

NOTE: The survey question asked participants to “rate your knowledge NOTE: The survey question asked participants to “rate your comfort level
of the following topics” using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = “none” and with teaching others about the following topics” using a scale of 1 to 5
5 = “very knowledgeable”. The reported values reflect an averaged where 1 = “uncomfortable” and 5 = “very comfortable”. The reported
response; n = 9. values reflect an averaged response; n = 9.

748 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

 Chemistry for Everyone

When asked to rate the extent to which their UW IPSE Educators and Youth Organization Leaders
experience was worthwhile on a scale of 1–5, with 1 = not at
Feedback was solicited from educators and youth orga-
all worthwhile and 5 = very worthwhile, all but one intern
nization leaders (e.g., Junior Girl Scout) who interacted with
rated their experiences worthwhile or very worthwhile, with
the interns. As recipients and users of intern-created activi-
an average rating for the second year of 4.67.
ties, they provided feedback in the form of a written survey
In addition to the attitudinal surveys, the interns par-
about the usefulness and appropriateness of the activities and
ticipated in formative assessments throughout the year for
the effectiveness of the interns’ communication skills.
the purpose of monitoring their progress and gauging the
Information from educator surveys and follow-up inter-
need for adjustments to the program. Monthly Web-based
views conducted by UW IPSE personnel revealed that hav-
surveys asked interns to report on their goals for the upcom-
ing a knowledgeable, engaging presenter lead the activity was
ing month, their satisfaction with their team experiences and
preferable to doing so themselves; hands-on time for students
UW IPSE staff interactions, and their perceived progress in
was an important part of any presentation; the presentations
the skills mentioned above. The interns responded that they
often provided the opportunity to perform a lab or activity
were happy with their teams and that they were making
not normally possible in the classroom; and the activities
progress in developing skills. The majority of the interns also
broadened their students’ educational experiences. The edu-
felt that the staff provided appropriate guidance in helping
cators surveyed expressed both interest and willingness to
them reach their goals. When interns responded with a con-
promote the program at their respective educational institu-
cern, request, or recommendation, the UW IPSE staff ad-
tions. This support is also evident in their evaluations of the
dressed these issues through email and face-to-face meetings.
interns when they visited their classrooms. When rating in-
Videotaped assessment of each team leading its activity
terns on a scale of 1–5, with 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 =
occurred during the second semester of year two. Interns from
very satisfied, the vast majority of educators gave the interns
each team were asked to videotape their team leading an ac-
fives on the following topics: knowledge of presenter, activity’s
tivity. Pre-college educators, UW IPSE staff, and the interns
engagement of students’ interest, educational value of activ-
viewed the videotapes and provided the team members with
ity, and activity’s success in attending to proposed Wisconsin
feedback regarding their communication style and the orga-
model academic standards (10). All the educators believed
nization and content of their activity. Initially these critiques
that the UW IPSE activities were delivered at an age-appro-
were free-form, but a rubric was later created to facilitate dis-
priate level.
cussion in three categories: communication method, assess-
ment “on-the-fly”, and audience engagement. The video
Pre-College Students
assessment allowed the interns to watch themselves commu-
nicate science—a new opportunity for many of them—and Pre-college students provided the most enlightening feed-
to assess the positive and negative aspects of their activities back regarding the effectiveness of the interns and their ac-
and their communication styles. tivities through impromptu post-assessment by their teacher.
This feedback was shared with the interns and used to im-
prove their communication skills and the organization and
content of their team activity. Rigorous assessment of the stu-
dents was not pursued due to human subjects’ issues.
Table 6. Interns’ Pre- and Post-Survey Responses
Regarding Self-Described Skill Level Program Impact
Skill Pre-Survey Post-Survey Overall The UW IPSE program aims to foster a public appre-
Rating Rating Increase ciation for advanced and nanoscale materials and to inspire
the imagination, interest, and enthusiasm of the public and
MWorking 4.33 4.56 0.23 future scientists and engineers. To this end, the program is
Meffectively in
at the cutting-edge of museum–university collaborations. It
Mteams
is the largest of the NSF IPSE programs in scope, involving
MCommunicating 3.00 4.56 1.56 31 interns to date and numerous faculty and staff. The struc-
Mscience topics ture of the program emphasizes professional development in
Mto non-technical the area of science communication (which is often overlooked
Maudiences in both undergraduate and graduate science and engineering
MInteracting with 3.33 4.56 1.23 courses), and encourages interdisciplinary and cross-sector
MK–12 students collaborations.
Since its start, this program has touched thousands of
MCreating a 3.55 4.22 0.67 people through publications and presentations that bring
Mdemonstration nanotechnology to their attention. Through its majority fe-
MDeveloping 3.44 4.00 0.56 male intern population, UW IPSE has also promoted women
Mage-appropriate in science. For the program’s first two years, 72% of its in-
Mpresentations terns were female, which was representative of the applicant
pool. The K–12 educators interacting with the internship pro-
NOTE: The survey question asked participants to “rate your skill level in gram commented that it was nice to have women scientists
the following areas” using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = “very low skill
level” and 5 = “very high skill level”. The reported values reflect an and engineers visit their classrooms to talk about science and
averaged response; n = 9. serve as role models.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005 • Journal of Chemical Education 749

 Chemistry for Everyone
Following their UW IPSE experience, several former in-
terns have continued in, or shifted their focus to, majors and
career paths in science education or public understanding of
science. Interns have gone on to work for NASA Television,
to cover the health and science beat for a local newspaper, to
apply to programs in nanotechnology offering research
experiences for undergraduates, and to accept postdoctoral
positions researching the societal implications of nanotech-
nology. Three interns have completed their teaching certifi-
cates, and several plan to use the materials that they and other
interns developed in their classes. We will continue to follow
past program participants to assess the longer-term impact
of the program.
Summary
As a collaboration between UW MRSEC and DW, this
innovative internship program has benefited both those who
have been involved professionally and those who have par-
ticipated in the UW IPSE-created activities. By introducing
the economic and societal implications of nanotechnology
through team role-playing activities and encouraging physi-
cal and mental interaction with activity materials, the interns
have fostered creativity and critical thinking in the minds of
K–12 students and the public and helped them to feel like
part of the future growth of technology. UW IPSE strives to
help student and public audiences realize that research at the
forefront of science and engineering can be both exciting and
accessible.
The program has also significantly contributed to the
professional development of DW management, floor staff,
and volunteers; the UW IPSE interns; and the UW MRSEC
faculty, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students.
Through informal discussions, museum personnel have
learned about nanotechnology and cutting-edge science, while
UW MRSEC personnel have learned about science educa-
tion in middle-school and museum settings. The interns have
benefited from structured professional development activities
and have gained the ability to translate complex scientific
jargon and concepts into language accessible to the nonex-
pert.
The UW IPSE program serves as a model for introduc-
ing leading research into public and pre-college educational
settings through a university–museum partnership. Science
center professionals have the expertise in science communi-
cation and the means to connect faculty and post-secondary
students to the public, while university researchers have sci-
entific expertise and research facilities to share. As a result,
such collaborations can be rewarding endeavors that com-
municate cutting-edge science and technology to the general
public and provide valuable professional development expe-
riences for all involved. Through its efforts, UW IPSE has
heightened public appreciation for nanotechnology and in-
spired the imagination, interest, and enthusiasm of children
and adults alike. More information about this program can
be found at http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/IPSE/educators/
index.html (accessed Feb 2005).
750 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005
W
Supplemental Material
Internships in Public Science Education program mate-
rials are available in this issue of JCE Online. These include:
descriptions of the lead team and the recruiting process; an
example program application; interview questions; fall and
spring syllabi from year two; pre- and post-participation sur-
vey instruments; and a full-length version of the “How Small
Are Carbon Nanotubes?” activity.
Acknowledgments
We thank the people who have made the UW IPSE pro-
gram possible, including past and present members of the
program’s management team: Joel Hassenzahl, Thomas F.
Kuech, and Cindy Widstrand from UW; and Paul Krajniak,
and Mike Schallock from Discovery World. We acknowledge
Diane Bowcock and Christine Pribbenow of the LEAD Cen-
ter for offering advice regarding our program evaluations. We
also want to thank the numerous graduate and undergradu-
ate interns who have contributed to the program. We greatly
appreciate the financial contributions made by the National
Science Foundation through DMR-0120897 (UW IPSE) and
DMR-0079983 (MRSEC).
Literature Cited
1. Committee on Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the
21st Century, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology.
Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington,
DC, 2003; available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10633.html
with a PDF report brief at http://books.nap.edu/html/
molecular_frontier/reportbrief.pdf (both accessed Feb 2005).
2. Ucko, D. A.; Schreiner, R.; Shakhashiri, B. Z. J. Chem. Educ.
1986, 63, 1081–1086.
3. Silberman, R. G.; Trautman, C.; Merkel, S. M. J. Chem. Educ.
2004, 81, 51–53.
4. Paris, S. G.; Yambor, K. M.; Packard, B. W.-L. Elem. Sch. J.
1998, 98, 267–288.
5. UW MRSEC, Lab Manual for Nanoscale Science and Tech-
nology. http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/nanolab/index.html (accessed
Feb 2005).
6. UW IPSE, How Small Are Carbon Nanotubes? http://
www.mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/IPSE/educators/nanotube.html (ac-
cessed Feb 2005).
7. UW IPSE, Educator Resources. http://www.mrsec.wisc.edu/
edetc/IPSE/educators/index.html (accessed Feb 2005).
8. UW IPSE, Welcome to Nanoville: Technology and Public
Policy. http://www.mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/IPSE/educators/
socImp2.html (accessed Feb 2005).
9. UW IPSE, Nanoarchitecture: Forms of Carbon Activities.
http://www.mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/IPSE/educators/carbon.html (ac-
cessed Feb 2005).
10. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Wisconsin
Model Academic Standards. http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/stan-
dards/ (accessed Feb 2005).
• www.JCE.DivCHED.org