Difference between revisions of "Team:UCSC/Community-Outreach"

Revision as of 19:34, 18 August 2017 (view source) Brittneywick (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:29, 20 September 2017 (view source) Abpearce (Talk | contribs) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{UCSC-Header}}		{{UCSC-Header}}
	COMMUNITY OUTREACH		COMMUNITY OUTREACH
		+	Outline of contents:
		+	Integrated Human Practices:
		+	Was their work integrated into their project? (We want to see how projects have evolved based on Integrated HP work.)
		+
		+	</h3> Education and Public Engagement<h3>
		+	</h2>iGEM judging rubric below:</h2>
		+	1. Did their work establish a dialogue? (The teams should show that a conversation was established, that they did not just “talk at” their audience.) </br>
		+	2. Does it serve as an inspiring example to other teams? </br>
		+	3. Is it documented in a way that others can build upon? </br>
		+	4. Was it thoughtfully implemented (i.e., did they explain the context, rationale, prior work)? </br>
		+
		+	Teams should be able to demonstrate that this dialogue was bi-directional, - teams should be able to demonstrate that they have learned from the interaction and/or that the opportunity for learning was built into the activity. Judges should focus on WHY the team has chosen their speci c activities, WHAT they have done and accomplished, and HOW they have learned from the activity.
		+
		+	Should include tabs for how HP informed aspects of the project. aka Human practices: Informing chassis choice....or something.
		+
		+
		+
	{{UCSC-Footer}}		{{UCSC-Footer}}

---

Revision as of 19:29, 20 September 2017

COMMUNITY OUTREACH Outline of contents: Integrated Human Practices: Was their work integrated into their project? (We want to see how projects have evolved based on Integrated HP work.)

</h3> Education and Public Engagement

</h2>iGEM judging rubric below:</h2> 1. Did their work establish a dialogue? (The teams should show that a conversation was established, that they did not just “talk at” their audience.) </br> 2. Does it serve as an inspiring example to other teams? </br> 3. Is it documented in a way that others can build upon? </br> 4. Was it thoughtfully implemented (i.e., did they explain the context, rationale, prior work)? </br> Teams should be able to demonstrate that this dialogue was bi-directional, - teams should be able to demonstrate that they have learned from the interaction and/or that the opportunity for learning was built into the activity. Judges should focus on WHY the team has chosen their speci c activities, WHAT they have done and accomplished, and HOW they have learned from the activity. Should include tabs for how HP informed aspects of the project. aka Human practices: Informing chassis choice....or something.