Workshop to Integrate Computer-based Modeling and Scientific Visualization into K-12 Teacher Education Programs
We propose here a national workshop of EOT-PACI (Education, Outreach, and Training - Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure) partners, leading colleges of education, innovative researchers, teacher educators, teachers, and scientists. The workshop will establish collaborative pathways through which participants will research and develop sustainable strategies to integrate computational modeling and scientific visualization within science and math teacher preparation programs nationwide.
The "Background" section outlines the primary motivations for the proposed workshop, the "Needs in Science Education" section describes what is needed in science education to address those motivations, and the "Addressing the Needs" section suggests ways to meet the needs in science education. The "Proposal" section describes the national workshop that we are proposing in this document. This workshop is the initial step toward long-range goals, which are outlined in the section, "Long Range Agenda."
Table of Contents
Background
Needs in Science Education
Addressing the Needs
Proposal: Phase 1. National Workshop (for which we are requesting the present funding)
Long-term Agenda
Background
Science for all Americans
The sheer complexity of modern life calls for citizens to understand scientific models. Appeals to citizens about global warming, alternative medicine, and water quality indicate the need for citizens to understand the models presented to them, to sensibly evaluate predictions, to consider validity of models, and to understand the power and limits of modeling. Yet few K-12 students or teachers have any exposure to the computational tools used by scientists and engineers; even basic modeling and visualization technologies are not being employed at more than a handful of K-12 schools.
Importance of Computer-based Modeling and Scientific Visualization
Just as teachers would not think about teaching biology without a microscope or chemistry without test tubes, increasingly teams of scientists do not think about doing science without computer-based modeling. The computer has become a basic tool of science. Whether investigating sea surface temperature patterns, considering chemical structure of promising pharmaceuticals, or studying stress patterns in buildings, scientists rely on modeling and visualization software as the most effective way to process large amounts of information and complex relationships. Modern science and engineering have become increasingly reliant upon these computational and visualization techniques in all areas of research, development and design. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a large-scale engineering project that will not call upon many aspects of the mathematical and computational sciences.
Visualization and modeling software has the potential to change the process of scientific inquiry not just for scientists, but for everyone. The national science standards emphasize that learning should be engaged, with students working together to solve realistic problems, using tools and methods used by scientists. Students may use simpler versions of scientists' modeling and visualization tools to make explicit their understanding of connections and feedback between various parts of real systems. In constructing their models, students can determine whether the conceptual model they have fleshed out is deficient. They can create scenarios and formulate questions. In short, this approach potentially gives teachers the methods they need to achieve curricular goals and students the learning environment that can make them more effective citizens and future scientists.
Needs in Science Education
This proposal addresses two main concerns for science education: teaching science for all Americans and increasing the numbers of scientists, especially underrepresented minority and women scientists. Engaged, experiential learning is important to develop science education for all. The use of computer-based modeling and scientific visualization in science education is necessary both to develop skills in future scientists and to aid all Americans in understanding models and visualizations when they are presented as evidence for arguments made by experts, politicians and the media. Developing opportunities for underrepresented minorities and women is instrumental in any effort to increase the number of scientists.
Engaged, Experiential Learning
When learning is engaged, students are constructing knowledge in meaningful ways, they are responsible for their learning, they are asking and answering their own questions. If learning is experiential, students are working in groups to solve authentic problems, they are researching real life issues which are meaningful to them and multidisciplinary in nature, they are "doing" and "experiencing". Teachers are guides, coaches, facilitators, and co-learners. (NCREL, 1995) However, although constructivist teaching methods and engaged learning have been lauded for more than a decade by teacher educators and teachers alike, and even though curriculum reform and national science education standards have called for more engaged, experiential learning (Project 2061, AAAS; National Academy of Sciences), field research suggests that such learning and teaching practices have not made it to the typical classroom. Instead, "[w]hat emerges then, from information on modes of instruction is a great deal of teacher lecture and student independent seatwork, with very little emphasis on active engagement of students in the construction of their own knowledge." (Porter, 1994)
Computer-based Modeling and Scientific Visualization in Science Education
A major recommendation of the report Setting a Research and Planning Agenda for Computer Modeling in the Pre-College Curriculum (Final Report: NSF RED-9255877) is that "[c]omputational modeling ideas and activities should have a key and central role throughout the science curriculum - not peripherally, and not only as part of a special or optional course." Models help "abstract from reality key features that enable us to gain insight into the fundamental processes underlying external complexity." Relationships between variables must be made explicit in both a qualitative and a quantitative sense. Observation, measurement, graphing, curve fitting, modeling, and visualization are all part of a continuum of doing science. Curriculum issues are also addressed in this report. "There is a need for a set of guidelines and models for use in integrating models and simulations into locally-relevant curriculum in a way that allows students to achieve the new goals."
The AAAS Benchmark science standards also indicate the need for computer-based modeling. The benchmark common themes emphasize connections between seemingly disparate science content. In using and creating computer models, student attention can be focused on similar structures and behavior. For example, a predator prey interaction model and a physical spring model share the oscillation structure. Disruption and resumption of equilibrium can be found in both biological and earth systems. Assimilating an understanding of such structure and behavior leads to acquisition of the "schemas" of science content which have been shown to distinguish experts from novices. (Chandler, & Sweller, 1991)
Opportunities to Address the Underrepresentation of Minorities and Women in Science and Engineering Fields
Computational science (the use of computational modeling and visualization tools) is a growing field and more computational scientists are needed. Yet, minorities and women continue to be underrepresented in most science, mathematics, engineering and technology fields, at all levels of education and work. (Bae and Smith, 1996; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997; College Board Online, 1997; TIMSS, 1996) If we can develop computational science expertise in previously untapped women and minority populations, and if we can determine the pathways to make science more accessible to women and minority students, we can address two problems simultaneously: equity and the shortage of scientists and engineers prepared to do computational science.
Addressing the Needs
Computer-based Modeling and Scientific Visualization Promote Engaged, Experiential Learning
The use of computer-based modeling and scientific visualization in science and mathematics education facilitates engaged, experiential learning. (Stratford, 1998) According to the workshop report, Computational Science and Education: Workshop on the Role of HPCC Centers in Education (1991), modeling, visualization, and computational science can
- Engage the imaginations of students and their teachers in understanding the physical world around them.
- Increase the opportunity for more students and for younger students to learn through discovery and exploration, using the same tools that scientists use.
- Add more realism to problems studied in the classroom and bring students' work closer to contemporary challenges that interest them.
- Enlist a significantly larger number of scientists, mathematicians and engineers in collaborations and mentorships with students and teachers.
- Provide access to resources (human and technological) for students and teachers in isolated or disadvantaged areas.
As Chris Dede (1997) argues, modeling, simulation, and virtual representation can serve as a "bridge between the concrete of the real world and abstract of the symbolic, which we increasingly have to deal with as adults."
Computer-based Modeling and Scientific Visualization Provide Learning Opportunities for Women and Minorities
A recent study by Harold Wenglinsky on computers and math achievement "reveals that low-income students have as much access to computers as higher-income students and, in fact, spent more time on computers in school than their higher-income peers. But lower-income students were far more likely to engage in the less useful drill and practice exercises, rather than productive uses of computers." Wenglinsky concludes, "[i]t seems that policies to promote computer access in school have succeeded in eliminating inequities of this sort; yet inequities in teacher preparedness and what is taught using computers remains." (Pierce, 1998) If we can facilitate the use of modeling and visualization in these classrooms, minority and low-income students will have a path to further develop their higher level thinking skills and access to difficult concepts in science and mathematics.
Women are underrepresented in science and engineering not because they are any less capable than men of doing science, but because they tend to lose interest (Bae and Smith, 1996). Modeling and visualization become important tools for young women to use because these are primary tools of scientists and engineers; if women are not prepared to use these tools early in their education, they will choose not to pursue science. Where young men may be attracted to such tools without prior exposure in their education, often young women are not. Thus, it becomes critical to provide additional and strategic opportunities for girls, especially at the middle school ages, to become comfortable with modeling and visualization tools, to bring those tools into their culture and into their language, and to build their confidence and their self-esteem.
Focus on Teacher Education Programs
Teachers must learn to become competent designers of inclusive instructional environments that incorporate visualization. Computational modeling and visualization activities will be integrated into the classroom only to the extent that teachers change their expectations of how all students learn science, try out new teaching roles and methods, and utilize modeling and visualization as a way to achieve state and national education goals. Only an experienced teacher can integrate curriculum goals, student background and available computational resources into an engaged learning experience. The foundations for this experience should be laid in preservice training and maintained through regular inservice teacher education opportunities. At the same time, scientists and educational researchers need a better appreciation of the key role of teachers, and of the problems they and their schools will face in implementing modeling tool use.
The need to work closely with teacher education programs is especially great in the next 5-10 years. "Estimates place the total demand for new entrants to teaching at 2 million to 2.5 million between 1998 and 2008, averaging over 200,000 annually. About half of these are likely to be newly prepared teachers, and about half will be migrants or returnees from the reserve pool of teachers." [Linda Darling-Hammond article] Furthermore, "there is a 50 percent turnover in the teaching force approximately every 15 years." (PCAST Report, 1998)
Proposal: Phase 1. National Workshop
Until now the EOT-PACI (Education, Outreach and Training for the Partnerships for an Advanced Computing Infrastructure) partners have individually focused on inservice teacher training on computer-based modeling and scientific visualization. The number of teachers who have become prepared to use computational tools in their classrooms has grown steadily, but even with several "train the trainer" models of teacher training, this group cannot hope to reach a majority of the teachers in the United States. However, the EOT-PACI can, through collaborations with LIS partners and schools of education, and by leveraging the power of their alliance, including regional PACS (Partners for Advanced Computational Services), target critical points at which to support the use of computer-based modeling and scientific visualization. One such critical point for impacting K-12 education is teacher education. Thus the EOT-PACI group proposes to host a national workshop to understand how EOT-PACI partners, in collaboration with their parent organizations, National Computational Science Alliance and the National Partnership for an Advanced Computational Infrastructure, can work with colleges of education, including affiliated learning scientists and classroom researchers, to incorporate computer-based modeling and scientific visualization in science education courses.
Specifically, the EOT-PACI partnership proposes to contribute to teacher education in two ways: 1. Technology transfer of visualization and modeling tools, learning environments, and knowledge mining tools. This would include adapting technology for educational settings that have known barriers, such as low bandwidth or low-end computers. 2. Bridge scientific and education communities by developing and supporting an infrastructure to support relationships among scientists and educators. This infrastructure might include 1-to-1 mentoring relationships, but would more likely build on teleapprenticeship relationships. These relationships might consist of teachers, undergraduates and graduate students participating in special programs and internships with scientists. These teachers, undergraduates and graduate students then become intermediate links between scientists and educators. In addition, EOT-PACI partners will often assist in mediating communication among communities. This infrastructure would not just aid teacher educators in learning to use modeling and visualization, but also in why to use it.
The proposed workshop will direct EOT-PACI efforts in these two areas by defining the needs and uses of computer-based modeling, scientific visualization tools, and computational methods in science education, and identifying the major barriers to their integration into classroom practice; examining and developing strategies for overcoming known barriers to transfer of advanced technology into school environments, including schools of education; identifying promising methods of integration into teacher education programs, especially addressing pedagogic models (scaffolding, student inquiry, assessment), professional development opportunities for faculty and strategies for providing faculty with time necessary to restructure courses; identifying how EOT-PACI partners can begin to build an infrastructure of technology and knowledge transfer to support those methods of integration; and establishing collaborative research relationships among teacher educators, K-12 teachers, scientists, learning scientists, and computational scientists to learn how these tools and methods can best be integrated into teacher education programs.
Expected Outcomes
The outcomes we expect to achieve in such a workshop include the following.
- Written plans of action and strategies for working with colleges and state departments of education will be developed. The EOT-PACI, LIS partners, and teacher education communities will gain a better understanding of how to work with each other to provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to learn about modeling, visualization, systems thinking, and computational tools and methods. These plans will be the foundation for the technology and knowledge infrastructure described above.
- Specific activities will be planned to facilitate transfer of modeling, visualization, systems thinking, and computational tools and methods in pre-service teacher education courses. Some of these activities will be funded by EOT-PACI, but larger activities will require additional external funding.
- Collaborations among EOT-PACI partners, research organizations, colleges of education, and schools will be formed. These teams will work together to pursue strategies developed at the workshop.
- A report will be prepared that summarizes the conclusions made by the participants in the workshop and identifies key areas requiring further research and development. Presentations will be made to federal and state agencies and at national conferences that define and support teacher education.
- A web-site and a document aimed at raising awareness of the importance of, and providing guidelines for, the integration of modeling, visualization, and computational tools and methods into science education will be developed. The web-site and document will be aggressively disseminated via listservs, conferences, and publications.
Organization
The workshop will be co-chaired by Sharon Derry (National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin College of Education), Mary Ellen Verona (Maryland Virtual High School) and Lisa Bievenue (NCSA and EOT-PACI K-12 Lead). The workshop will be hosted by EOT-PACI partners (including NCSA, SDSC, Maryland Virtual High School, National Institute for Science Education, Alabama Supercomputing Program to Inspire computational Research and Education, Ohio Supercomputer Center), SRI International, the University of Illinois, Lesley College, and the University of Texas at Austin. The workshop planning and preparation team includes Mary Ellen Verona (MVHS), Edna Gentry (ASPIRE), Cynthia Lanius (Rice University), Steve Gordon (OSC), Sharon Derry (NISE, UW), Cheryl Converse-Rath (SDSC), Ann Redelfs (SDSC), Theresa Ott (Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis ), and Lisa Bievenue (NCSA). Susan Loucks-Horsley (NISE and NAS) has also expressed interest in consulting with the workshop planning team.
The workshop will take place at the NCSA Access Center in Ballston, Virginia. This is a relatively convenient location for travel purposes and includes necessary facilities (computer lab, videoconferencing capabilities, and advanced technologies) at no additional cost to EOT-PACI. The tentative date for the workshop is October 12-13.
Participants
Key national leaders in teacher education, science education and technology will be invited to develop and present white papers on specific topics, demonstrate how modeling and visualization tools are used in science, and lead sessions on specific issues for this focused workshop. Representative teacher educators, pre-service teachers, inservice teachers, school administrators, scientists, learning scientists, and educational technology researchers will be invited to participate in the workshop. The participation committee includes Sharon Derry (NISE, UW), Jim Levin (College of Education, University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign), Doug Gordin (SRI International), Mary Ellen Verona (MVHS), Theresa Ott (CAIDA), and Richard Tapia (Rice University). This committee will develop an invitation list that includes representation from national organizations (e.g., AAAS and NSTA), colleges and research programs that will help to ensure successful research projects, as well as broad representation. Thus, faculty and administrators of innovative teacher education programs will be invited since their programs are already likely to be receptive to the implementation of computer-based modeling and scientific visualization; for example, the teacher preparation program in the School of Natural Sciences at the University of Texas, Austin. Furthermore, since teacher education program needs vary by school size, minority population, and geographical location, the participation committee will ensure that faculty and administrators are invited from large teacher education programs (via the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education), programs with a high number of minority preservice teachers (through an existing alliance of Colleges of Education at Minority Serving Institutions), and schools from each geographical region of the United States (by contacting Regional Technology in Education Consortia).
In order to encourage broad and key representation, invitees will be provided with compelling reasons to be interested in the need for computational science, modeling, and visualization in science education. The key reason for most leaders is that these tools and methods help teachers respond to the national science and math standards. Another strong argument is that scientists have been using these tools to DO science, and, as educators, we should be concerned with aligning the way science is taught to the way science is done. A third argument is that all students will be able to understand and construct models in order to make informed decisions throughout their lives.
Pre-Workshop Activities
Identify participants and invite them to the workshop. Of the participants, identify panels of experts to present white papers and demonstrations at the workshop. Panel members will discuss the issues relevant to their session, research those issues, and develop white papers. Distribute white papers to all participants at least one month in advance of the workshop. Establish collaborative workspaces to facilitate discussion of the white papers before the workshop.
Workshop Format
At the two-day workshop, leaders will present their papers and participants will discuss the issues presented. Demonstra-tions will be organized to illustrate successful integration of applied modeling and visualization in the classroom. A set of panelists for each session will moderate the proceedings and present a synthesis of the issues raised. Sessions will be held to discuss the development of collaborations and follow-up activities. A tentative list of sessions follows.
How Scientists and Educators Use Modeling and Visualization to Facilitate Constructivist Inquiry-based Learning
- Demos by Alliance and NPACI Applications Technology and Enabling Technology teams
- Demos of LIS and EOT-PACI tools
- Demos by successful K-12 science educators
Successful teacher education programs (inservice and preservice) using modeling and visualization in science education (White Papers)
- How computational modeling helps students meet national learning goals
- Identify promising tools and practices in computational science by grade level (scope and sequence)
- What prerequisite skills are needed at each grade level?
- How do these tools and practices help teachers and students achieve national math and science standards and benchmarks at each grade level?
Teacher education programs in math and science (White Papers)
- Summary of what has already been learned
- What further needs to be learned?
- Constituents and those who have influence
- What are barriers and points of resistance?
- Competencies for teachers in using technology in math and science
- What is the "ramp" to prepare teachers to move toward the use of modeling and visualization?
Designing learning environments that incorporate modeling and visualization tools
- Demos of successful learning communities and environments using modeling and visualization
- Principles and theories of learning environment design - with a focus on the role of modeling and visualization (White Papers)
Strategies to Increase Women and Minority Representation in Science and Engineering (White Papers)
- The importance of modeling and visualization in science education to prepare all students, but especially women and underrepresented minorities
- System-wide techniques to motivate and counsel young women and minority students
- Mechanisms to reach preservice and inservice teachers likely to teach minority student populations
The role of EOT-PACI in teacher education (White Papers)
- Technology transfer of learning tools, scientific tools, and communication and collaboration tools
- An infrastructure of math, science, and technology teleapprenticeships to support teacher educators
- A bridge between scientists and teacher educators
- How do we scale up from successful models (how do we build a scientific and technical "grid" to support teacher education)?
Next steps
- Formulate how to "package" computer-based modeling and scientific visualization, so that they fit into the teacher education programs
- Create accompanying training materials that support teacher educators and practicing teachers, and put these materials online
- Forge collaborations to research, develop, and test alternative methods of integration
Evaluation
Third-party formative and summative evaluation will be provided by the UW-Madison's Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation and Dissemination (LEAD) Center. This evaluator was chosen for two fundamental reasons: First, the LEAD Center is a nationally-recognized expert at integrating qualitative and quantitative data in a formative approach to evaluation. This type of evaluation can provide rich, continuous feedback to the PIs on the progress and impact of their efforts to integrate training in computer visualization and modeling into teacher education. Second, LEAD has developed a national reputation for its evaluations of educational reforms that utilize high performance computer technologies. As the official evaluator for the Education, Outreach, and Training (EOT) programs of the NSF-funded National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI), LEAD has experience in assessing, analyzing, and disseminating the impact of computer-assisted learning on a diverse mix of student populations. LEAD also has extensive experience evaluating programs designed to recruit and retain women and underrepresented minorities into the fields of science, math, engineering, and technology.
The purpose of the evaluation will be twofold: (1) to collect in-depth information on workshop participants' perspectives on the key issues in implementing the long-term agenda of the proposal, including barriers to implementation; and (2) to assess the immediate and longer term impact of the workshop on participants and the institutions and professional bodies with which they are associated. Data regarding the outcomes of the workshop and the subsequent progress of the strategies developed at the workshop will be collected through observations of workshop activities, analyses of workshop materials, and interviews or surveys with workshop participants immediately after, 6 months after, and 1 year after the workshop. The LEAD Center's process-based evaluation will focus on the following questions:
- immediately after the workshop, what are participants' intentions?
- what can the PIs and EOT PACI do to support those intentions?
- if 6 months later, no significant progress is made, why not?
- what are the barriers to implementation?
- where progress has been made, what factors have contributed to that progress?
Long Term Agenda
Beyond the immediate goals of this workshop, the EOT-PACI envisions a national infrastructure, or grid, of education and technology to bring the research and prototypes, developed as result of partnerships formed at this workshop, to bear on educational practice. A critical step toward a national infrastructure, or grid, to impact teacher education programs is to bring together the research on learning at LIS centers, the expertise of the EOT-PACI in transferring computer-based modeling, scientific visualization, and high-end science to educators, and Colleges of Education with their understanding of the dynamics of teacher education programs. EOT-PACI, as a nationwide alliance, seeks to provide the basis for a sustainable technology infrastructure that will continue to support relationships among teacher education programs, LIS partners, and EOT-PACI partners. While we are not now requesting funding for this long-term agenda, we have structured the proposed workshop to be consistent with this long-range goal.
Phase 2. Research and Development
After the proposed workshop, when collaborative relationships have been established, we will propose coordinated development, implementation and evaluation of the identified methods of integration. Teams of teacher educators, K-12 teachers, scientists, learning scientists, and computational scientists will develop courses and course modules that integrate computer-based modeling and scientific visualization into science and mathematics education. These teams will work closely with Alliance (National Computational Science Alliance) and NPACI (National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure) applications technology teams. Teams will also be encouraged to take advantage of existing Alliance, NPACI, and LIS prototype tools. Alternative methods of implementation will be identified, implemented and evaluated.
Teams that are formed at the national workshop will prototype methods of implementation and integration. As part of this implementation, courses and course modules will be developed by teams of teacher educators, K-12 teachers, scientists, learning scientists, and computational scientists. These modules will be designed to help future teachers understand how to use and integrate a variety of modeling, visualization, systems thinking, and computational tools and methods to better facilitate learning of science and mathematics concepts. Modules will not focus on specific tools, but on the methods of doing science, in and beyond the classroom, that the tools facilitate and the appropriate pedagogical structures to match.
Methods of implementation will also be tested. For example, one team might implement course modules by employing scientists and computational scientists as mentors in a teleapprenticeship structure. Another team might feature courses that are co-taught by education faculty and computational scientists or science faculty in other departments. A different team might develop and test a distributed collaborative learning environment that could be used to instruct teachers in the use of these tools, and then also be used by teachers (and students) in the classroom. Yet another team might use Professional Development Schools, in which K-12 teachers and teacher educators co-teach courses based in the K-12 school building, to provide real classroom experiences for preservice teachers, as well as a potential mechanism for teacher educators to stay abreast of current school-based realities. Some teams may also focus on special issues; for example, the development of general tools for modeling and visualization, collaborative learning environments that could support key modeling and visualization tools, or techniques to overcome barriers experienced by women or minority students when learning and applying modeling and visualization.
Phase 3. Dissemination
When sufficient research and development has been conducted on methods of integration, we will propose a dissemination phase to examine the effectiveness of the courses and course modules that were produced in development and testing phase, demonstrate processes to implement these courses and modules to a larger audience of teacher educators, and develop mechanisms to establish an education and technology grid to support on-going collaborations.
Representatives of a wide range of teacher education programs will be invited to review the research results of phase two. The intent is that these results will demonstrate the importance of, and successful methods for, the integration of modeling, visualization, systems thinking, and computational tools and methods into science education. Potential participants will be encouraged by the teacher education programs that participated in phases one and two. Once participants become interested in how to integrate these tools and methods, sessions will be held to train the teacher educators how to use and integrate the tools into both a K-12 teacher's curriculum (specific to grade level and national standards) and into their own curriculum for teacher education. Such training will be conducted by the teams which were formed in phase two.
The key to broad and national dissemination, however, is to discover, establish, evaluate, and sustain interactional frameworks that support teachers, students, teacher educators, and scientists. While this second workshop might succeed in encouraging teacher educators to integrate the current modeling, visualization, and computational tools and methods, unless there is a mechanism for them to learn about new and better technologies and tools, they will not be able to incorporate future technologies and methods. Thus, we propose that the teams formed in the first workshop commit to maintaining a collaborative relationship that supports communication and training regarding new and emerging tools, methods and technologies. The current EOT-PACI will serve as the basis for such a framework, in much the same way that the NCSA Alliance supports the development of a national grid of computing and networking resources. Such a framework will also support additional development and evaluation of courses and course modules.
|
Phase One: National Workshop (current request) |
|
|
|
|
Preparations and invitations |
Months 1-6 |
|
|
Workshop |
Month 7 |
|
|
Report preparation |
Months 8-10 |
|
Phase Two: Research and Development |
|
|
|
|
Collaborations develop |
Months 8-9 |
|
|
Develop courses and modules |
Months 9-24 |
|
|
Testing and evaluation |
Months 13-27 |
|
Phase Three: Dissemination |
|
|
|
|
Evaluation, and preparations for a dissemination workshop |
Months 25-30 |
|
|
Dissemination Workshop |
Month 31 |
|
|
Further training & outreach |
Months 32-36 |
|
Evaluation Report |
Months 1-36 |
|
