Difference between revisions of "Team:UCSC/Community-Outreach"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<h3> Education and Public Engagement</h3> | <h3> Education and Public Engagement</h3> | ||
<h2>iGEM judging rubric below:</h2> | <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> | + | <br> 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> | + | <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> | + | <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> | + | <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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 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.)
Education and Public Engagement
iGEM judging rubric below:
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.
