Trailblazing Work in Community Outreach and Scientific Communication
Trailblazing Work in Community Outreach and Scientific Communication
Award Description
- This award aims to highlight outstanding work done to promote and enhance public understanding of scientific concepts pertaining to the field of ecology or the natural and environmental sciences. The work must have been done on a consistent basis over a period of time, with some evidence of its effectiveness. It can be in person activities or social media based outreach. This includes but is not limited to, after school programs that work with grade school students, community engagement activities like environmental fairs, or workshops with teachers on how to better convey the appeal of environmental science to their students.
Eligibility
- You must be a member of ESA and the Student Section, or a first time meeting attendee.
- You must be enrolled as a student (high school, undergraduate, Masters or Ph.D) or one year post-graduation.
- You must be in good academic standing.
- You must attend the Student Section Business Meeting & Trailblazing Student at ESA Award Ceremony and your attendance at other Student Section events is strongly encouraged.
- Preference will be given to applicants who identify as an underrepresented minority.
Application Questions
- Demographic Information
- Presentation info (research presentation or presentation on work in ecology science outreach?)
- Involvement/leadership in science outreach. (include previous work and current work)
- Describe work (summarize work you are doing in science outreach, projects/initiatives you have been apart of, your role in the work, duration of work, etc.)
- Impact of work
- Future aspiration in field
Selection Criteria
- To prevent any biases (especially sub-conscious) all applicant names, addresses, and any other personal information will be removed prior to distribution to judges. The applications are evaluated on the following criteria:
- Leadership Abilities: The applicant lead initiatives focused on improving, developing, and/or implementing community outreach and science communication.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: The applicant lists and clearly describes their leadership role in each of the community outreach and science communication initiatives/programs they have been apart of. The applicant demonstrates extensive leadership skills in their past and current work.
- 4: The applicant lists the community outreach and science communication initiatives/programs they have been apart of, but fails to clearly describe their leadership role in each initiative/program. The applicant demonstrates extensive leadership skills in their past and current work.
- 3: The applicant ONLY lists the community outreach and science communication initiatives/programs they have been apart of. The applicant demonstrates some leadership skills in their past and current work.
- 2: The applicant ONLY lists the community outreach and science communication initiatives/programs they have been apart of. The applicant’s leadership skills are unclear.
- 1: The applicant does not mention any community outreach and science communication initiatives/programs they have been apart of and lacks leadership experience.
- Rating Criteria:
- Description of Work: The applicant must explain the work that they have done/currently do within the field of community outreach and science communication. The applicant should clearly describe their work and its importance to the field of ecology.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: The applicant clearly explains the importance of their community outreach and science communication work to the field of ecology as a whole, and provides specific details/examples of their work.
- 4: The applicant clearly explains the importance of their community outreach and science communication work to the field of ecology as a whole, but fails to provide specific details/examples of their work.
- 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic explanation of their community outreach and science communication work and fails to describe its importance to the field of ecology as a whole.
- 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic explanation of their community outreach and science communication work and fails to describe its importance to the field of ecology as a whole.
- 1: The applicant does not explain their community outreach and science communication work and fails to describe its importance to the field of ecology as a whole.
- Rating Criteria:
- Impact of Work: The applicant must explain the broad impacts of their work. How does their work impact the field of ecology? other students? the general public? community outreach and science communication? etc.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: The applicant clearly explains multiple broad impacts of their community outreach and science communication work and provides specific examples to support their claim.
- 4: The applicant clearly explains one broad impacts of their community outreach and science communication work and provides specific examples to support their claim
- 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic explanation of the impact of their community outreach and science communication work and fails to provide specific examples to support their claim.
- 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic explanation of the impact of their community outreach and science communication work and fails to provide specific examples to support their claim.
- 1: The applicant does not discuss the impact of their community outreach and science communication work.
- Rating Criteria:
- Future Aspirations: The applicant should describes the community outreach and science communication work they aspire to do in the future and how they will continue to be involved with community outreach and science communication work throughout their career.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: The applicant provides specific details about the community outreach and science communication work they aspire to do in the future, and clearly explains how they will continue to be involved with community outreach and science communication work throughout their career.
- 4: The applicant provides specific details about the community outreach and science communication work they aspire to do in the future, but fails to clearly explain how they will continue to be involved with community outreach and science communication work throughout their career.
- 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic description of their future community outreach and science communication work and does not discuss how they will continue to be involved with community outreach and science communication work throughout their career.
- 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic description of their future community outreach and science communication work and does not discuss how they will continue to be involved with community outreach and science communication work throughout their career.
- 1: The applicant does not mention their future community outreach and science communication work and does not discuss how they will continue to be involved with community outreach and science communication work throughout their career.
- Rating Criteria:
- Diversity and Inclusion: The applicant should describe the ways in which their current or future work promotes diversity and inclusion, with regards to culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and/or subculture, as described in ESA’s Diversity Statement. The diversity of geographic locations and/or ecology subdisciplines does NOT meet the diversity and inclusion criteria.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led- initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future and clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
- 4: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led-initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future but fails to clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
- 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
- 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
- 1: The applicant does not mention the work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
- Rating Criteria:
- Syntax and Overall Quality: The application must be clear and well written. It must be apparent that the applicant thought through each question and provided thorough, proof-read responses.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: The application is well written and thorough. There are almost no syntax errors indicating a proofread application.
- 4: The application is thorough but contains some syntax errors.
- 3: The application is thorough but contains several syntax errors, grammatical errors, and inconsistent language.
- 2: The application is not well written and in some areas not thorough (e.g. too short, lacking details, not logically organized).
- 1: The application lacks thoroughness throughout and is poorly written.
- Rating Criteria:
- Optional Uploads & Web Links: Bonus creativity points will be given to applicants who including optional uploads and/or links that illustrate: 1) the applicant’s work, 2) the impact and/or significance of their work, and/or 3) address any of the application questions in a creative/non-traditional way. Examples: videos that depict your work/research, social media sites used to educate the public, infographics created during a project, creative websites used to explain your work.
- Rating Criteria:
- 5: Optional uploads and/or web links are original, interesting, and engaging/interactive. Applicant shows exceptional creativity.
- 3: Optional uploads and/or web links are original and interesting. Applicant shows some creativity
- 1: Optional uploads and/or web links has some creative elements, showing an attempt to be creative
- Rating Criteria:
- Leadership Abilities: The applicant lead initiatives focused on improving, developing, and/or implementing community outreach and science communication.