Latest News

American scientists believe they face a challenging environment and the vast majority of them support the idea that participation in policy debates and engagement with citizens and journalists is necessary to further their work and careers.

A survey of 3,748 American-based scientists connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that 87% agree with the statement “Scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about issues related to science and technology.”Just 13% of these scientists back the opposite statement: “Scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of public policy debates.”

This widely held view among scientists about active engagement combines with scientists’ perspectives on the relationship between science and society today in several ways:

• Most scientists see an interested public: 71% of AAAS scientists believe the public has either some or a lot of interest in their specialty area.
• Many scientists see debates over scientific research findings in the media: 53% of AAAS scientists say there is a lot or some debate in the news about their field.
• A sizable share of scientists believe careers can be advanced by media coverage of their work and social media use: 43% of AAAS scientists say it is important or very important for scientists in their specialty to get coverage of their work in news media, up from 37% who said that in a 2009 survey. Some 22% described it as either “very important” (4%) or “important” (18%) for career advancement in their discipline to promote their findings on social media such as Facebook or Twitter. Still, a majority of AAAS scientists say it is not too or not at all important for career advancement to have their research covered in the news (56%), and 77% say it is not too or not at all important for career advancement to promote their findings on social media.
• At the same time, most scientists believe that science news coverage can pose problems for science: 79% of scientists believe it is a major problem for science that news reports don’t distinguish between well-founded and not well-founded scientific findings. Further, 52% of scientists say that simplification of scientific findings is a major problem for science in general.

These findings come at a time when science topics are increasingly part of the public debate. Pew Research findings from this survey reported last month showed an overall drop among AAAS scientists in how they rate the state of science in general and their particular scientific field. Scientists also express concerns about the precarious state of research funding, some of the influences on how funding is allocated, and difficulties they feel hinder the capacity of science disciplines to attract the best talent to the field.

How scientists are engaging: Half talk to reporters and 47% use social media.

Nearly all the AAAS scientists (98%) say they have some level of interaction with citizens at least from time to time, and 51% have at least some contact with reporters about research findings.

In addition, nearly half of AAAS scientists – 47% – use social media to talk about science or read about scientific developments at least some of the time. Some 24% of these AAAS scientists blog about science and research.

The scientists who are most likely to be involved in public activities show distinct patterns by age, by the level of public debate and public interest they perceive in their specialty, and by discipline. Virtually all scientists engage with citizens. Mid-career and older scientists are especially likely to speak to reporters. Younger scientists are more likely to use social media. And blogging is something that equally spans the generations under age 65.

There is also evidence in the survey that the most engaged often use multiple methods and platforms to connect with the public. In other words, those who want to engage tend to do so in multiple ways.

Abstract

Both scientists and the public would benefit from improved communication of basic scientific research and from integrating scientists into education outreach, but opportunities to support these efforts are limited. We have developed two low-cost programs—"Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old" and "Shadow a Scientist”—that combine training in science communication with outreach to area middle schools. We assessed the outcomes of these programs and found a 2-fold benefit: scientists improve their communication skills by explaining basic science research to a general audience, and students' enthusiasm for science and their scientific knowledge are increased. Here we present details about both programs, along with our assessment of them, and discuss the feasibility of exporting these programs to other universities.

Introduction

Both the scientific community and the general public stand to benefit from improved communication of basic scientific research [1–3]. Having a science-literate, or even sympathetic, public has major implications for both the health of our society and for the climate for public funding of research. There is also a need to draw scientists into education outreach and provide for their professional development in science communication and education [4–6]. Experience teaching science has been shown to improve skills in generating testable hypotheses and in designing experiments [7], and it correlates with higher rates of publication [8]. The National Science Foundation (NSF) explicitly supports science communication efforts through its Broader Impacts, a mandatory section of all grant proposals, which requires that each project have, in some way, the “potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes,” which includes encouraging science education outreach (NSF Grant Proposal Guide, Office of Management and Budget [OMB] Control Number 3145–0058). Despite this NSF mandate, there still are very few cost-effective models that provide training in science communication to graduate students and research scientists while benefiting the community [9–11].

Engaging graduate students and research scientists in outreach activities that provide science education for students between the ages of 5 and 18 years old (K–12) is a direct way of increasing young students’ awareness of ongoing scientific research. It is also a valuable opportunity for scientists to improve their science communication skills. Inquiry-based (as opposed to content-based) teaching in particular has been shown to result in both higher content retention and more positive attitudes toward the subject matter on the part of the students [12,13]. Graduate students and research scientists at the University of Texas at Austin initiated two novel educational outreach programs that combine training in science communication with outreach to area middle schools: “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old” and “Shadow a Scientist.” Both programs provide a venue and structure for scientists to convey their current research to middle school students through direct interaction and mentorship. Both also emphasize an inquiry-based approach to science by providing actual examples of generating and testing hypotheses (in the case of “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old”) and open-ended hands-on explorations (“Shadow a Scientist”). By participating in these programs, scientists become more involved in community outreach and gain experience in communicating the basic concepts and importance of their research to a general audience.

Both programs communicate current research to middle school students. Our assessment of these programs revealed a 2-fold benefit: the scientists improve their communication skills by explaining basic science research to a general audience, and the students’ enthusiasm for science and their scientific knowledge are increased. Here we describe these two relatively small, scientist-initiated and scientist-operated programs, present the results from our assessment of the programs, and discuss the feasibility of exporting them to other universities.

Shadow a Scientist

The Shadow a Scientist program matches two middle school students with a scientist for a 2-hour tour of the scientist’s lab and experiments in progress. The Freshman Research Initiative, a program at the University of Texas at Austin that engages undergraduates in real research during their freshman year (http://cns.utexas.edu/fri), sponsors this outreach program. Shadowing a scientist gives middle school students the opportunity to visit laboratories on a university campus and interact with scientists. The middle school students—who have come from private, public, and home schools—visit one scientist who is selected based on their personal interests. On a typical visit, the students meet with the scientist and are introduced to his or her research. The students ask questions about research, do hands-on tasks in the lab, and are shown lab equipment.

The goals of the program include providing the opportunity for young students to cultivate their interest in science, allowing them to experience firsthand what a scientist does on a daily basis and providing graduate students and scientists the opportunity to explain their research and practice and improve their science communication skills. The logistics for this program are the responsibility of the program director and involve recruiting students by contacting administrators or teachers at local middle schools as well as coordinating with both parents and scientists to find a specific date that a student will shadow a particular scientist. Middle school students complete an application, which is used to schedule the student’s visit to the university on a first-come, first-served basis and to match students with scientists in an area of research that interests them. Because 10–18 students participate on any given day, undergraduate students engaged in research participate as volunteers to be student escorts, providing an additional outlet for undergraduate students to participate in educational outreach. To ensure participant safety, students are required to wear appropriate lab clothing, i.e., long pants or a long skirt and closed-toed shoes. Each student must also complete a liability form before the shadowing day. Additional information, as well as a sample PDF application and liability form, can be found at http://cns.utexas.edu/fri/outreach/164-freshman-research-initiative/outreach/633-shadow-a-scientist-program.

In addition to providing scientists with the opportunity to hone their science education outreach skills, short-duration summer science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) projects have other documented positive outcomes for participating students and scientists [14,15]. Since 2011, Shadow a Scientist has hosted a total of 503 middle school students at no charge. Forty-seven scientists, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and professors from diverse disciplines, have hosted students. In addition to these traditional types of scientists, many of the scientists participating in the program have been “research educators,” a position for PhD research scientists teaching Freshman Research Initiative undergraduate research courses. This program provides the opportunity for research scientists to improve their science communication skills while sharing their research interests with young students and engaging in community outreach.

Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old

In “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old,” graduate student researchers in STEM fields present a simplified version of their PhD thesis in middle school classrooms or community centers. This program gives emerging scientists the opportunity to communicate their discoveries to middle school students and fuel students’ curiosity and enthusiasm for science. Importantly, the program provides a framework for graduate students to participate in community outreach and develop their science communication skills at an early stage in their science careers.

Thus, a key goal of this program is to provide an avenue for graduate students to improve their science communication skills. Graduate students who join this program start out as “presenters” and initially learn how to present their PhD thesis to a broad audience. Presenters develop a visual, interactive presentation on their PhD thesis that can be easily understood by middle school students. Each presentation is approximately 20 minutes, and an engaging, interactive format is encouraged. Previous exemplary presentation samples are available for viewing, and new presentations are carefully vetted during practice sessions aimed at helping the new presenter develop a high-quality presentation. During practice talks for each new presenter, there is an audience of three or more experienced graduate student presenters from the program. This setting provides ample opportunities for the new presenters to meet the outreach group and to benefit from feedback from more experienced presenters with multiple perspectives based on lessons they have learned and feedback from their previous presentations.

Another goal of this outreach program is to provide a structure that enables graduate students to gain experience in initiating and developing ongoing relationships in their community. Therefore, the program relies on some “presenters” becoming “organizers” who initiate and facilitate presentation series within their communities. Organizers are autonomous and are each free to develop a lecture series with local educators in a manner that fits their schedules. Thus, one organizer might visit their community venue(s) several times a month, while another might visit a couple of times a semester. Each organizer initially introduces his or her lecture series to the students near the beginning of the school year by giving a broad presentation that explains what graduate school and a PhD thesis is and describes his or her own experience as a graduate student and scientist.

Organizers often initiate their first presentation series based on a personal connection with a teacher or administrator. Organizers often choose to reach out to a particular school where most of the students are from backgrounds underrepresented in the sciences. They also receive requests for presentations from educators who find out about the program from our website. The simple structure and distributed responsibility of this program allows for scalability and continuity of the program even without a full-time administrator and despite turnover as graduate students leave the university.

Typically presentations lead to many questions from the students. After the presentations, students complete forms with a rubric to provide written feedback to the presenter. A rubric is potentially an important tool for improving the ability of graduate students to explain their research [16]. Our rubric allows graduate students to receive both quantitative and free-form assessment of various aspects of their presentation. Feedback forms are designed to be engaging, so middle school students are not quizzed on the material presented but instead are asked to rate the presenter on enthusiasm and accessibility and suggest improvements (S1 Fig).

Over the past four years, 36 graduate students, mainly from biology disciplines (see examples of presentation titles), have presented at 11 educational venues in Austin and the surrounding rural communities (S2A and S2B Fig). Although the program was developed for middle school students, younger and older students have also participated. In the first four years, presentations were given to a total of 1,002 K–12 students (ages 5–18). The student audiences ranged from a small group of 12 at the Boys and Girls Club, to multiple classrooms of students at a private elementary school in auditorium presentations, to several classrooms at a public science magnet middle school in a series of presentations.

In addition to helping graduate students develop science communication skills, the program also offers potential benefits for students and teachers [17]. Students can benefit by learning about ongoing research, which adds to and complements science topics covered in the classroom. Students also become familiar with the ways research is designed and performed and learn firsthand about graduate school and science as a career path. Teachers can also benefit by bringing outside expertise into their science classroom that often leads to increased interest in related science topics covered in the teacher’s subsequent lessons. Additional information about the program and the participants as well as videos of past presentations can be found at http://www.utexas.edu/ogs/research/outreach/.

Impact of Outreach Programs

Informal feedback from participants in both of these programs has been very positive. However, in order to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of these programs, during this past year we asked participating scientists and middle school students (ages 11–14) to voluntarily complete anonymous surveys aimed at assessing their outcomes.

Almost all of the survey participants indicated that these programs improved their ability to explain their research (Fig 1C and 1H). However, the survey results indicate that the “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old” program was more effective at improving participants’ scientific speaking skills (Fig 1B and 1G). This might be an expected outcome considering that the graduate students in this program spend time and effort preparing a presentation of a simplified version of their research. Additionally, scientists in this program may give many presentations, allowing them to modify their slides as well as their presentation delivery over time. Almost all of the participants in both programs indicated that the programs were valuable and provided them new perspectives on their research (Fig 1D and 1E and 1I and 1J).

Fig 1

Survey responses of scientist participants.

(A–E) The “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old” program (n = 15) and (F–J) the “Shadow a Scientist” program (n = 18).

The surveys for the “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old Program” were offered to students at an area magnet middle school with a science focus. Approximately 87% of the students responded that the presentations helped them to understand science better, while only 47% of the students indicated that the presentations made them want to look up more information on their own (Fig 2C and 2D). Perhaps more importantly, 70% of the students indicated that the program increased their interest in science, and 60% of the students responded that the program increased their interest in becoming a scientist (Fig 2A and 2B).

Fig 2

Survey responses of student participants.

(A–D) The “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old” program (n = 37) and (E–H) the “Shadow a Scientist” program (n = 31).

For the Shadow a Scientist program surveys, approximately 90% of the responding students indicated that they had a better understanding of science, and 75% had an increased interest in looking up more information on their own (Fig 2G and 2H). More than 80% of the students responded that participating in the program increased their interest in studying science and becoming scientists (Fig 2E and 2F). Based on the comments section of the surveys from Shadow a Scientist participants, some of the more memorable experiences that students reported while shadowing biologists include the following: learning about and even performing gel electrophoresis; examining cells using an electron microscope; and learning about telescopes and supercomputers from astronomers and computer scientists, respectively. The results from both programs show they seem to have a positive effect on students’ interest in science (Fig 2A and 2E). Overall, the student responses were slightly more positive for the Shadow a Scientist program, and this may be due to the longer, more personal interaction with a scientist that students receive in this program (Fig 2E–2H).

We performed statistical analyses comparing the results of the surveys between the two programs and generated p-values using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as implemented in the exactRankTests library of R. Corrections for multiple testing were performed using the Dunn–Šidák method. The only two statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the responses were that scientists participating in the Present Your PhD to a 12-Year-Old program were much more likely to "strongly agree" that this program helped them to become more effective speakers and students participating in the Shadow a Scientist program were much more likely to “strongly agree” that this program made them want to look up more information on their own.

As with all program evaluations, our evaluation has limitations. For example, because our surveys were anonymous, we cannot determine whether students who participated in one program also participated in the other. We are also unable to track participants over time to see if they experience any longer-term outcomes. Another shortcoming is that our evaluation relied on self-reports of scientists’ gains in communication skills and student reports of their understanding of science. Meta-analytic work by Falchikov and Boud demonstrates that self-reports of knowledge or skill gains may or may not correlate with performance on more direct measures of knowledge or skills [18]. To address this shortcoming in the future, we will use more direct measures of scientists’ development of communication skills (e.g., Sevian and Gonsalves) [16]. We will also use more established, valid, and reliable measures of students’ interest in science and science careers (e.g., Gibson and Chase) [19] to see if we see similar effects as those we report here.

Replication of Outreach Programs

One responsibility as scientists is to effectively communicate research and scientific concepts to the general public [2]. The need for more interaction between scientists and the public is widely recognized [11,20]. However, a study assessing scientists’ attitudes toward communication training found that scientists showed only moderate willingness to engage in science communication with the public in person [21]. Encouraging graduate students and research scientists to participate in K–12 STEM educational outreach programs is a direct way of addressing this issue. Here, we describe two relatively small, scientist-initiated and scientist-operated outreach programs that we believe are reproducible and scalable and can play valuable educational roles at any research institution and the local community they serve. Our two programs provide models for creating effective partnerships between scientists at universities and teachers and students at K–12 schools. They also help bridge the gap between graduate and postgraduate science communication training and K–12 educational experiences [10,22] by affording scientists the chance to educate young students about basic research while improving their science communication skills and sharing their enthusiasm for science. Our assessment indicates that, although not equal, both programs succeed to varying degrees in improving science communication and education.

In order to be successful in today’s extremely competitive field of science, scientists must dedicate a majority of their schedules to performing research. Most outreach programs described in the literature require a substantial time commitment from participating scientists and may even need a full-time person to organize and run. These programs are unique because they require a small input of time from the participating scientists and are inexpensive to implement yet yield documented positive benefits for the participants. These programs are an attractive option to address the acknowledged lack of science communication and outreach in universities. Thus, we call on other research scientists to replicate these programs at their universities, and we provide the information here as a guide to initiating these new outreach efforts.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig

Presentation rubric for middle school students’ evaluation of PhD thesis presentations.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(191K, pdf)}

S2 Fig

(A) List of venues in which PhD thesis presentation programs have been developed and (B) a sample list of presentation titles.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1023K, tif)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Sara Brownell and Dr. Erin Dolan for helpful discussions and suggested improvements to the manuscript.

References

1. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, et al. (2009) Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol 27: 514–518. doi: 10.1038/nbt0609-514 [PubMed]

2. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L (2013) Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ 12: E6–E10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

3. Komoroske LM, Hameed SO, Szoboszlai AI, Newsom AJ, Williams SL (2015) A scientist's guide to achieving broader impacts through K-12 stem collaboration. Biosci 65: 313–322.

4. AAMC-HHMI. Scientific foundations for future physicians. Washington, D.C.: 2009.

5. AAAS. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. Washington, D.C.: 2011.

6. Anderson WA, Banerjee U, Drennan CL, Elgin SCR, Epstein IR, Handelsman J, et al. (2011) Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities. Science 331: 152–153. doi: 10.1126/science.1198280 [PubMed]

7. Feldon DF, Peugh J, Timmerman BE, Maher MA, Hurst M, Strickland D, et al. (2011) Graduate students’ teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills. Science 333: 1037–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.1204109 [PubMed]

8. Ethington CA, Pisani A (1993) The RA and TA experience: Impediments and benefits to graduate study. Res Higher Educ 34: 343–354.

9. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L (2013) A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. Adv Physiol Educ 37: 70–79. doi: 10.1152/advan.00138.2012 [PubMed]

10. Kuehne LM, Twardochleb LA, Fritschie KJ, Mims MC, Lawrence DJ, Gibson PP, et al. (2014) Practical science communication strategies for graduate students. Conserv Biol 28: 1225–1235. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12305 [PubMed]

11. Devonshire IM, Hathway GJ (2014) Overcoming the barriers to greater public engagement. PLoS Biol121: e1001761 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001761 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

12. Deslauriers L, Schelew E, Wieman C (2011) Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science 332: 862–864. doi: 10.1126/science.1201783 [PubMed]

13. Luckie DB, Aubry JR, Marengo BJ, Rivkin AM, Foos LA, Maleszewski JJ (2012) Less teaching, more learning: 10-yr study supports increasing student learning through less coverage and more inquiry. Adv Physiol Ed 36: 325–335. [PubMed]

14. Miller KC, Carrick T, Martínez-Sussmanm C, Levine R, Andronicus CL, Langford RP (2007) Effectiveness of a summer experience for inspiring interest in geoscience among Hispanic-American high school students. J Geoscience Educ 55: 596–603.

15. Laursen S, Liston C, Thiry H, Graf J (2007) What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K–12 classrooms. CBE-Life Sci Educ 6: 49–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

16. Sevian H, Gonsalves L (2008) Analysing how scientists explain their research: A rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. Int J Sci Educ 30: 1441–1467.

17. Beck MR, Morgan EA, Strand SS, Woolsey TA (2006) Volunteers bring passion to science outreach. Science 314: 1246–1247. [PubMed]

18. Falchikov N, Boud D (1989) Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 59: 395–430.

19. Gibson HL, Chase C (2002) Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Sci Educ 86: 693–705.

20. Pew Research Center (February 15, 2015) “How scientists engage the public”. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/. Accessed 7 January 2016.

21. Besley JC, Dudo A, Storksdieck M (2015) Scientists’ views about communication training. J Res Sci Educ 52: 199–220.

22. Baram-Tsabari A, Osborne J (2015) Bridging science education and science communication research. J Res Sci Educ 52: 135–144.

Your Sincerely

Peter Smith

Principal

A deer has been left hanging by its neck from a noose tied to a Sydney bridge.

The animal was spotted dangling from the Alford’s Point Road bridge, which crosses the Georges River in Sydney’s south, yesterday afternoon.

WARNING: Graphic images below

A New South Wales Police spokesperson said water police officers were called to the scene to assist NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) authorities to retrieve the deer.

A Woronora resident who took the picture from a boat on the river, and who only wanted to be known as Kristie, told 9News.com.au of her shock at seeing the deer from below with her husband.

“You could see the deer just hanging there from a distance,” she said.

“It’s just horrific.”

Kristie, 39, said she called the RSPCA and Sutherland Police after making the grim discovery and then stayed out on the water underneath the hanging animal until authorities arrived.

“There were people going past with kids in the boat and they looked at it and then hurried off because they didn’t want their kids to see it,” she told 9News.com.au.

“I got sad and then really angry - you just want the people who are responsible for it caught.

“I can’t believe there are people like this out in the community.

Your Sincerely

Peter Smith

Principal

• Boeing failed to warn the airline industry about a potentially dangerous feature in its a new flight-control system that is suspected to play a role in the fatal Lion Air crash in Indonesia last month, The Wall Street Journal said.
• That fight-control feature is the automated stall-prevention system found on Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models, which is intended to help pilots avoid raising a plane's nose too high, the Journal reported.
• The potential fault in the system is that it can push the plane's nose down "unexpectedly and so strongly" that pilots can't pull it back up even when flying manually, the report said.

Boeing failed to warn the airline industry about a potentially dangerous feature in its a new flight-control system that is suspected of playing a role in the fatal Lion Air crash in Indonesia last month, The Wall Street Journal reported late on Monday.

That aircraft feature is the automated stall-prevention system found on Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models, the Journal reported, citing industry sources including safety experts, aviation regulators and airline pilots.

In response to CNBC's request for comment, Boeing said it is "confident in the safety of the 737 MAX."

"We are taking every measure to fully understand all aspects of this incident, working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved," a spokeswoman said in an email.

The system in question is designed to help pilots avoid raising a plane's nose too high, which can cause it to stall, according to the report. The potential fault in the system is that it can push the plane's nose down "unexpectedly and so strongly" that pilots can't pull it back up even when flying manually, the report said. It added that when that happens, the plane could dive or crash.

Boeing revealed the possible fault in a bulletin to airlines about a week after the Lion Air crash, the report indicated.

Lion Air's new Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashed into the Java Sea last month shortly after taking off from Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta airport. The plane was carrying 189 people, including crew.

For the full report on Boeing's flight control feature, read The Wall Street Journal.

Jakarta. State-owned flight navigation service AirNav Indonesia announced on Sunday (30/09) that the main airport in Palu, Central Sulawesi, had been reopened for commercial flights after its closure on Friday evening in the wake of a major earthquake, followed by a tsunami.

The air traffic control tower was partially destroyed and one of the two runways damaged in the magnitude-7.4 quake that struck the area on Friday evening.

"AirNav Indonesia has issued a notification on Sunday … on the reopening of Mutiara SIS Al Jufri Airport in Palu for limited commercial flight services with visual flight rules," Yohanes Sirait, the agency's public relations manager, said in a statement.

AirNav announced shortly after the main tremor that the airport would be closed for 24 hours.

It reopened on Saturday morning for search and rescue operations and to receive emergency and humanitarian aid.

The powerful earthquake resulted in damage to 500 meters of runway and the collapse of the top level of the control tower. It also put the navigation equipment, including the radar system, out of action.

At least 384 people were confirmed dead and more than 500 injured as of Saturday afternoon, according to the National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB). The search for victims, mostly trapped under collapsed buildings, is continuing.

There had been no updates as of Sunday morning on casualties in Donggala district, the area closest to the epicenter, due to limited road access to the area and disruption of the telecommunication network.

President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo was scheduled to visit Palu on Sunday after attending a prayer for victims of the disaster in Solo, Central Java, in the morning.

The Ministry of Transportation has urged flight operators to contact air traffic control in Makassar, South Sulawesi, for scheduling commercial flights to Palu.

"Departing from Adisumarmo Military Base in Surakarta [Central Java] to Palu. I want to see for myself and make sure the disaster relief following the earthquake and tsunami in Central Sulawesi directly reaches our brothers and sisters there," the president said in a statement on Sunday.

Military and police personnel have been deployed in the affected areas since Friday evening to assist with emergency relief efforts. Several ministers have also arrived in Palu on Saturday to coordinate the efforts.

According to the BNPB, more than 19,000 people are currently living in temporary shelters.

A Brisbane builder has been jailed over an ugly neighbourhood dispute spanning three years, that forced some residents to sell up.

Steven Tarasiuk was found guilty of stalking Arna Duetz following a four-and-a-half week trial in the Brisbane District Court.

Tarasiuk first came to the attention of A Current Affair four years ago when his neighbours claimed he'd been bullying residents in their leafy Indooroopilly street.

During construction of Tarasiuk's dream home, the Duetzes claimed they found nails in their fish pond and that toilet paper was tossed across from the on-site portaloo.

On one occasion they found their pet dog spray painted with stripes.

It's not known who was behind the incidents and Tarasiuk has always denied any involvement but after A Current Affair's initial story on the neighbours' claims, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission found Tarasiuk unfit to hold a licence.

But the saga wasn't about to stop there.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Workers stripped of sick pay, super, leave in ‘sham’ contracts
• 'He doesn't care': Struggling clients slam franchise chief
• Man who ‘executed’ three victims could be paroled despite multiple life sentences

Fed up, Mrs Duetz and fellow neighbour David Coates complained to police, which led to Tarasiuk being charged with stalking.

"I've basically become a prisoner in the house, I don't go out," Mrs Duetz told reporter Tim Arvier at the time.

The court heard a myriad of accusations including the words "Wankers Nabers" appearing on Tarasiuk's side of the boundary wall with the Duetzes as well as radios and compressors being left on at all hours.

A jury eventually found Tarasiuk guilty of stalking Mrs Duetz, but not guilty of stalking Mr Coates.

Brisbane District Court judge Ian Dearden sentenced Tarasiuk to 15 months' jail, suspended after five months, for stalking Mrs Duetz.

Judge Dearden also imposed a 10-year restraining order on Tarasiuk, barring him from contacting Mrs Duetz, her family as well as David Coates and his family.

Tarasiuk has lodged an appeal against the verdict.

Be safe Younger Kids

Alex Stewart

College Officer

On Monday afternoon, Sophie Monk's Instagram followers were surprised to see an Instagram Story that showed her lying on a hospital bed with an oxygen mask on her face.

A doctor could be seen leaning over her, saying, "We did find some endometriosis, but not a lot."

"So many women live not knowing they have endometriosis," the 38-year-old star wrote. "If you have annoying cycles you should ask your [doctor]."

Then, in a second post on her Instagram Story, Monk showed off her signature humour by writing, "Only I'd ask to be filmed under! Best sleep I've had in years. @monashivf your staff are angels."

Now, Monk has spoken exclusively to 9Honey Celebrity to reveal exactly what procedure she had done, and how she found out she had endometriosis in the first place.

"The reason I found out I had endometriosis was I went to freeze my eggs at Monash -- I'm just in discussions about it," Monk said this morning over the phone. "[My doctor] suggested -- because I'm in a lot of pain, and I'm in and out of hospital a lot that people don't know about, and no one could find what it was -- he suggested I might have endometriosis, and found it. That's how it came about."

The Love Island Australia host confirmed that she didn't know she had endometriosis until yesterday, shortly before she shared the news on Instagram.

There has also been speculation about the procedure Monk had, which she clarified: "It was a keyhole surgery to check, and then they got rid of it."

Monk's decision to post about the personal health scare wasn't driven by a need to tell everyone what she was going through, but as a reminder to other women who may be experiencing similar symptoms that they should have a proper check-up.

"The reason I posted it is because there's so many women out there that don't know they have it -- you just learn to live with it and think it's normal, and you've got PMT or something. He said 90 per cent of women he does that test on have it."

Armistice Day is on 11 November and is also known as Remembrance Day.

It marks the day World War One ended, at 11am on the 11th day of the 11th month, in 1918.

A two-minute silence is held at 11am to remember the people who have died in wars.

There is also Remembrance Sunday every year, which falls on the second Sunday in November.

This year, it will fall on Sunday 11 November.

On this day, there are usually ceremonies at war memorials, cenotaphs and churches throughout the country, as well as abroad.

The Royal Family and top politicians gather at The Cenotaph in Whitehall, London, for a memorial service.

The anniversary is used to remember all the people who have died in wars - not just World War One.

This includes World War Two, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, and conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why do we hold a two-minute silence?

The first two-minute silence in Britain was held on 11 November 1919, when King George V asked the public to observe a silence at 11am.

This was one year after the end of World War One.

He made the request so "the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead".

"Never Forget, Always Remember" 

Whether it is called a keylogger, spyware or monitoring software, it can be the equivalent of digital surveillance, revealing every click and touch, every download and conversation.

A keylogger (short for keystroke logger) is software that tracks or logs the keys struck on your keyboard, typically in a covert manner so that you don’t know that your actions are being monitored. This is usually done with malicious intent to collect your account information, credit card numbers, user names, passwords, and other private data.

Legitimate uses do exist for keyloggers. Parents can monitor their children’s online activity or law enforcement may use it to analyze and track incidents linked to the use of personal computers, and employers can make sure their employees are working instead of surfing the web all day.

Nevertheless, keyloggers can pose a serious threat to users, as they can be used to intercept passwords and other confidential information entered via the keyboard. As a result, cybercriminals can get PIN codes and account numbers for your financial accounts, passwords to your email and social networking accounts and then use this information to take your money, steal your identity and possibly extort information and money from your friends and family.

How would I get a keylogger?

Keyloggers spread in much the same way that other malicious programs spread. Excluding cases where keyloggers are purchased and installed by a jealous spouse or partner, and the use of keyloggers by security services, keyloggers are installed on your system when you open a file attachment that you received via email, text message, P2P networks, instant message or social networks. Keyloggers can also be installed just by you visiting a website if that site is infected.

How do you detect a keylogger?
Keyloggers are tricky to detect. Some signs that you may have a keylogger on your device include: slower performance when web browsing, your mouse or keystrokes pause or don’t show up onscreen as what you are actually typing or if you receive error screens when loading graphics or web pages.

What can you do to protect yourself?

Just as you maintain your own health on a daily basis by eating well-balanced meals, getting plenty of rest and exercising, you must also maintain your computer or mobile device’s health. That means avoiding keyloggers by avoiding actions that could negatively affect your computer, smartphone or tablet, like visiting dangerous websites or downloading infected programs, videos or games. Here are some tips:

• Use caution when opening attachments – files received via email, P2P networks, chat, social networks, or even text messages (for mobile devices) can be embedded with malicious software that has a keylogger.
• Watch your passwords – Consider using one-time passwords and make sure key sites you log into offer two-step verification. You could also use a password manager like McAfee SafeKey that is available with McAfee LiveSafe™ service, which will automatically remember your user name and passwords, but also prevent keylogging since you are not typing in any information on the site as the password manager will do that for you.
• Try an alternative keyboard layout – Most of the keylogger software available is based on the traditional QWERTY layout so if you use a keyboard layout such as DVORAK, the captured keystrokes does not make sense unless converted.
• Use a comprehensive security solution – Protect all your devices—PCs, Macs, smartphones and tablets—with a solution like McAfee LiveSafe, that offers antivirus, firewall, as well as identity and data protection.

We get it – the transition from Year 11 to Year 12 can be challenging.

All of a sudden, everything you do throughout the Year 12 school year counts towards your HSC marks.

But, think about this:

Is the transition from Year 11 to Year 12 as hard as everyone makes it out to be?

Well, you heard it here first!

For some students, the transition from Year 11 to Year 12 can be overwhelming.

For some students, they find they were well prepared and didn’t have a lot of trouble making that transition.

Regardless of how you feel about the transition from Year 11 to Year 12, here are our top three tips from students who have been there! 

Tip #1: The workload is generally the same as Year 11, but the trick is to stay on top of the work!

 

Tip #2: Change your mindset from “I don’t really have to do this” to “This matters and counts towards my HSC mark and ATAR!”

 

Tip #3: Develop a good relationship with your teachers, they want to see you succeed! They’ll put the time in to support you if you put in the effort with them.

Do you feel like you need some support through the transition from Year 11 into Year 12?

We have an incredible team of teachers, tutors and mentors who can have been there and are reading to help you make that transition!

Our team can help you:

Step 1: Consolidate your Year 11 knowledge so you’re prepared for the jump from prelims to the HSC

 

Step 2: Get ahead from Day 1, Term 1 of Year 12

 

Step 3: Develop a rock-solid study plan for the HSC

Get in touch with us today to find out how we can help you transition from Year 11 to Year 12!

FYI: This is only open for Future Year 11's students and Future Year 12 students 

Kind Regards

Olivia Cassidy

Associate Principal, HR and Curriculum Performance

Today on 10 November 2018 Our Year 7 students went on a excursion to attend a swimming lesson and they did a very good job by represent our college to the member of the public. Our Year 7 has been out for the entire day since 10:00 AM and they arrive back to school around 2:56 PM just a perfect time before the bell went off. We had an amazing experience from attending the swimming lesson and I am sure that our Year 7 student had the same experience as I do but on the end of the day Our students were extremely tired but That's mean they have so much fun and I hope that we will be coming back next year in 2019 

If you want to read what's about the swimming lesson for Younger Kids

By clicking here

Kind Regards,

Alex Brett

Year 7 Coordinator

When a learning community is affected by a critical incident, a whole of community response is required. Learning communities that are prepared and have a critical incident management plan in place will be able to provide the best support to children and young people, staff and families. This plan will help the learning community return to normal as soon as possible after the critical incident and continue to be alert to the vulnerability of everyone in the community.

The first step in helping a child after a critical incident is understanding the types of reactions they may experience. This module explores the key principles of critical incident management at an individual and communal level. It then focuses on the response and recovery phase of critical incident management, including the importance of clarity of roles and responsibilities of all staff in the learning community. That all staff have an important role to play in supporting the emotional health and wellbeing of their community after a critical incident is a key learning of this module.

The information provided in this module focuses on the impact and response to critical incidents, but the principles are applicable to people who have experienced trauma.

D5 Module 2 Respond v06 

P1: So after a critical incident, it’s important to identify who in the learning environment is most impacted, and the levels of support everyone in the learning community might need. It might be people who are directly impacted by the event, and they need quite a different level of support than people who are on the periphery. 

P2: So what we did was firstly assess the impact of the critical incident. And I think that’s important anytime, is just to have a look at who is most affected. And that determined the way we communicated, and then how we supported them.

 P3: People will need different levels of support. That’s relevant for students or young people, as well as staff and parents or community members, because learning environments are responsible for being aware of the needs of all of those people. 

P4: To help the learning community recover after the critical incident, we did a number of things. We offered things like counselling opportunities, so, we had space available for students to go to with trained counsellors in the rooms, but also some staff members. We also had an information evening for parents, to even talk to them about how to help and support their children through what they were going through. 

P5: Some educators might be impacted themselves and services need to be really clear that if you’re impacted, you're not obliged, or you shouldn’t be made, to carry out a caring role or a support role if you're impacted yourself. 

P6: Most often than not you think you can manage it all within the school. And to be fair, that’s probably true to a point – however, when we contacted the local schools, we actually ended up tapping into their counselling services, so we had some of their counsellors who came to support ours, which was fantastic. 

P7: I suppose what we encourage for students and young people is good communication after a critical incident. That speaking about how they're feeling, looking out for their friends, encouraging their friends to seek help, and encouraging them to seek help if they need it, is really important.

 P8: Even just having a space for the students was particularly helpful. Just having that opportunity to come out of class, but really you have to be really careful about those spaces about making sure that it’s monitored and it’s not there for too long. Because again you don’t want to give permission for too long to keep withdrawing from normal everyday activities, because you want to return to that as soon as you can. 

P9: I think it’s important to also make sure people don’t see critical incidents as in just the crisis phase. That critical incident are definitely about when people are in crisis, but that there is a recovery phase where people who are at risk still need to be monitored and supported, and people need to be encouraged to move back into, kind of, normal functioning. I think what works well is when there’s a core group of people managing the response, they have really good communication amongst each other. So, those people are usually already identified before an incident occurs, and so they immediately come together and plan and then enact the plan for the school. END

Full document view here