bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.07.27.453770

Science in School: Transforming K-12 Outreach through Scientist Teacher Partnerships

Abramowitz, B.·Ennes, M.·Killingsworth, S.·Antonenko, P.·MacFadden, B.·Ivory, A.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Scientist in Every Florida School (SEFS) program was started in 2019 with a long-term vision to connect Earth systems scientists with public K-12 schools in Florida and therefore create long-term scientist-teacher partnerships. SEFS fulfills personalized requests to create meaningful and impactful interactions to support teacher pedagogy and student learning. We have as part of our mission a focus on mainstream public schools, and in particular, those that are Title I. We also are committed to working with at-risk teachers. The major components of our program include the scientist-teacher partnerships, focused professional development workshops on Floridas Earth systems (air, water, land, and life), classroom visits, and other web-based activities. Although still only in its first few years, the project and its more than 600 scientists have a wide reach with over 850 teachers and 53,000 students participating in our programs, which were delivered virtually in the 2020-2021 school year covering about 60% of Floridas 67 counties. In this article, we describe our programmatic features as well as recommendations for those who could implement similar programs.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Abramowitz, B., Ennes, M., Killingsworth, S., Antonenko, P., MacFadden, B., Ivory, A.. 2021-07-28. Science in School: Transforming K-12 Outreach through Scientist Teacher Partnerships. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.27.453770

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

Animal-reliance bias in publishing is a potential barrier to scientific progress

Publication of scientific findings is fundamental for research, pushing innovation and generating interventions that benefit society, but it is not without biases. Publication bias is generally recognized as journals preference for publishing studies based on the direction and magnitude of results. However, early evidence of a newly recognized type of publication bias has emerged in which journal policy, peer reviewers, or editors request that animal data be provided to validate studies produced using nonanimal-based approaches. We describe herein "animal methods bias" in publishing: a preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may be suitable, which affects the likelihood of a manuscript being accepted for publication. To gather evidence of animal methods bias, we set out to collect the experiences and perceptions of scientists and reviewers related to animal- and nonanimal-based experiments during peer review. We created a survey with 33 questions that was completed by 90 respondents working in various biological fields. Twenty-one survey respondents indicated that they have carried out animal-based experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests. Thirty-one survey respondents indicated that they have been asked by peer reviewers to add animal experimental data to their nonanimal study; 14 of these felt the request was sometimes justified, and 11 did not think it was justified. The data presented provide preliminary evidence of animal methods bias and indicate that status quo and conservatism biases may explain such attitudes by peer reviewers and editors.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

The gender gap in academic career achievements and the mediation effect of work-family conflict and partner support

Parenthood has long been associated with gender disparities in academia. Yet, the underlying mechanism of how parenting is associated with career achievement gaps of academics remains unclear. Using data from a large-scale survey distributed to 7,764 scholars and their publication profiles from the Web of Science database, we analyze the gender differences in parenthood, academic achievements, and the mediation effect of work-family conflict and partner support in these gender gaps. Our results suggest that gender gaps in academic achievements are in fact "parenthood gaps". Specifically, we found significant gender gaps exist in all measures of objective and subjective career achievements of academics in the parent group but not in the non-parent group. Additionally, mothers are more likely than fathers to experience higher levels of work-family conflict, and receive lower levels of partner support, contributing significantly to the gender gaps in objective and subjective career achievements for the parent group. Findings from this study identify the forms and the impact of parenthood on gender disparities in career achievements of academics and shed light on possible interventions and actions for mitigating gender inequalities in academia.

scientific communication and education↗