 Hi, my name is Ken Fleishman. I'm a professor in the School of Information or the iSchool at the University of Texas at Austin. I'm the founding chair of Good Systems, a UT Grand Challenge, a research grand challenge bringing together humanists, social scientists and technologists to design ethical AI. I'm also the founding director of the new BSI and BA in Informatics. The UT Austin iSchool begin offering with students entering in fall 2021. On behalf of my collaborators, Amelia Acker, Eric Meyer, Pat Garcia, Casey Pierce and Kentaro Toyama, and presenting our PITUN funded project, the PITUN Conference on Undergraduate Informatics Education or Informatics Education 2020. The objectives of our project were to facilitate information exchange and collaboration across PITUN institutions, including founding members, new members and potential future members to connect PITUN institutions with stakeholders in government, nonprofit and industry and to prepare our new Informatics undergraduate, prepare for new Informatics undergraduate degree program. So to achieve these goals, we organized Informatics Education 2020. Thanks to the generous funding that we received from PITUN, we were able to provide travel support to 20 conference participants, which we awarded competitively based on ensuring representation of participants considering factors such as ethnicity, gender identity or disability status, representation across the career trajectory focusing on students, postdocs and junior faculty members and representation across institutions, including focusing on minority serving institutions such as HBCUs and HSIs. It was a major rush to organize a conference in less than six months, but it paid off as we were just able to get the conference in under the wire in early March prior to the nationwide disruptions in travel due to COVID-19. Indeed, for many of us, unfortunately this may have been the last conference we've been able to attend in person for a while. We held the conference on the UT Austin campus at the AT&T Hotel and Conference Center. We are funded participants in many of our other participants stayed, which also served as the home base for the conference. Notably, this venue provides an excellent viewing both of the tower, the main landmark at UT Austin as well as the Texas Capitol building. Fortunately, the conference was a huge success with over 100 participants from 30 institutions. Characteristic of PITUN, these are a broad range of types of institutions including public and private, large and small, technical and comprehensive. Impressively, we had representatives from 10 current PITUN member institutions. Further, many of the participants from other institutions asked about how their institution could join PITUN. And fortunately, the chair of the membership committee, iSchool Dean Eric Meyer, was available to answer their questions. Importantly, we had representatives from two HBCUs and four HSI's, which made up 20% of the participating institutions. Our keynote speakers were Cecilia Munoz, the vice president for public interest technology and local initiatives at New America, Stephen Elkins, the chief information officer for the city of Austin, and Meredith Ringel-Morris, the founder of the Ability Research Group at Microsoft Research. The formal conference program lasted one and a half action-packed days, featuring six panels, 27 papers, 18 posters and a Texas-sized opening reception and banquet. We received positive feedback from attendees. In particular, we were pleased to have three undergraduate students from PITUN founding member, the Olin College of Engineering, present their research. They talked about how valuable the experience was to be exposed to new viewpoints and noted that the conference was an incredible reflective and learning experience. So returning to our objectives. It was great to see so much information exchange happen, not only among representatives from PITUN members, but also from faculty members who plan to return to their home institutions to encourage them to apply for PITUN membership. We were also fortunate to have speakers from city and state government, as well as from multiple nonprofits and companies. The conference also provided an excellent opportunity for our faculty to interact with educators with tremendous experience and expertise with undergraduate pedagogy. And happily, following the conference, we've been able to launch our new undergraduate informatics major in the UT Austin School of Information, which will admit students to begin in fall 2021. In particular, our concentration in social justice informatics is generating significant buzz across campus and beyond. The conference also led to a collaboration between UT Austin, Houston Tiltson University, the city of Austin, and two social justice-oriented nonprofits, capacity catalyst and measure. It also led to my colleague Sherry Greenberg from the LBJ School of Public Affairs and I to submit a proposal to the PITUN day one project, PIT Accelerator, which was accepted and which built off a presentation at the conference that we did. So that was a quick introduction to our PITUN project. I'd like to thank my collaborators on this project, Amelia Acker and Eric Meyer from the UT Austin School of Information, and Pat Garcia, Casey Pierce, and Kintaro Toyama from the University of Michigan School of Information. I'd also like to thank the sponsors of the conference, first and foremost, PITUN, also the UT Austin School of Information and Good Systems UT Grand Challenge. Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions at the panel. Hello, I'm Mahmood Farouk from Arizona State University School for the Future of Innovation in Society and Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes in Washington, DC. It is a pleasure to share a brief overview of the Public Interest Technology Community Innovation Fellowship, or PITCIP program that was funded by the PITUN 2019 Challenge Grant. This project is a partnership between Arizona State University led expert in citizen assessment of science and technology or ECAS network. ECAS is the distributed network of universities, science centers, and non-partisan policy and think tanks working to engage public in science and technology decision-making. ECAS is a membership-based network of nearly 700 science and technology centers, museums and allied organizations in the US and nearly 15 countries worldwide. Our project team comprised of my colleagues, Ira Bennett and King Quach and my Aztec partners, Kristin Dorgalo, Christopher Nelson and Rachel Diamond and my ECAS partner, David Sydenfeld from Museum of Science Boston. I'm going to start by first addressing the need this project is trying to address followed by our project objective timeline and status updates, outcomes to date and our evaluation plan. To begin, there is a growing need for authentic participation of public in key global issues and trends such as climate change and resilience, automation and impact on the future of work, biomedical innovation and healthcare, et cetera. When we do not meaningfully engage the public, two types of failure occur. One type of failure is the failure in public values where we have market success but we have public value failure in terms of equity, justice, fairness, quality life, et cetera. The other type of failure occurs when we have technology looking for public or public looking for technology. So we have a mismatch. So participatory technology assessment or PTA which our methodology is based on is an established tool that engages a group of non experts who are representative of the general population but who unlike political, academic and industry stakeholders are generally underrepresented in science and technology related policymaking. E-CAS mission is to establish such capacity in the US. Similarly, ASSEC mission is to help their member communities that is science centers to partner and develop a shared vision for the future as they engage their communities in science and technology issues. Hence, there was a natural connection and overlap between E-CAS and ASSEC mission that is to bridge the gap between participatory technology assessment and public engagement in science. So with the help of the PTA UN challenge grant we created a fellowship program to bridge these two practices. Specifically our goal was number one we wanted to create a replicable, scalable and competitive fellowship program for the next generation of engagement professionals who could work collaboratively with a civic government or university partner. We wanted to pilot this program at five informal science education centers in PTA UN networks cities. We wanted to mentor the fellows to design, develop and convene community forums on public interest technology topic of relevance. And then we wanted to evaluate the fellowship program and outcomes against our learning capacity building and social impact goals. So the program essentially had three elements. There was a co-design element with experts and stakeholders within their community. There was a deliberative component that engaged broadening community members on an informed and respectful dialogue. And then there's a dissemination component is to take the outcome and outputs from that dialogue and share it with stakeholders and decision makers to help make better policy or societal decisions. So our timeline, before I go to the timeline we in terms of the support we provide we required four types of deliverables from the participants. Obviously they had to co-design and co-develop the forum. They had to recruit and participate and host the forum. They have to analyze and share the forum results. And then they had to share the reflection so we can learn from their experience. In terms of support, we gave them travel, a stipend and expenses to offset the cost for convening the forum. So our timeline started in January and February with a recruitment process. We invited applications from Aztec members and partners to submit an application. And then we selected five teams as according to our plans. And then we convened our first training workshop in Boston. Then COVID happened. And because of the restrictions and because of all of the museums had to close down we had to force ourselves to think outside the box and think about innovative ways to use online and virtual tools to engage the public. Meanwhile, the fellows despite all of the restrictions wanted to continue and we delivered the webinar component that is the training component as our original schedule dictated. What ended up happening is the shift was because of the on the ground situation very in the five communities where we had teams we had to give them more time. So right now the forums are happening in some places and are expected to be finished by November and which also means that our original plan to bring the fellows back for the PQM meeting is not going to happen. We are going to have an online reflection workshop in January. So I would like to now introduce the five teams that we were able to select. Our first team is from Ann Arbor, Michigan where Jayde Marx from the Museum of Natural History partnered with Justin Schell of Shapiro Design Lab to look at community on data. We had Anya and Corrine from San Jose Anya from Tech Interactive and Corrine from Zinampa. They were interested in engaging youth in biotechnology issues. Then we had Rachel and Stephanie from Uster who were interested in urban heat resilience. We had Cindy Millard and Melissa Mullins from Waco, Texas. And they wanted to be, they wanted to engage their communities on issues of water equity. Finally, in Los Angeles we had Sasha and Rebecca who engaged their community on sustainability issues. As mentioned in our original diagram, all teams had the benefit of a mentor and these are the mentors that listed on the diagram here. Now, as I said that this created an opportunity for our fellows to innovate. So while they had envisioned a physical program, now they had to shift all of those activities online and they all used very unique and strategies and engagement approaches to accomplish that. For example, in Waco, Texas, they actually engaged extensive surveys to interview their local stakeholders to come up with the topic and then zoom for a synchronous community forum which was attended by the mayor of the town. Then in Worcester, they used what is known as considerate platform also to combine a synchronous and asynchronous component in engaging the community in Worcester on urban heat island effect related resilience issues. In San Jose, they were even more creative, they created kits that they could actually physically send to the youth participants they were targeting and also created this platform using mural which also used synchronous and asynchronous mode of engagement. Similarly, in Ann Arbor, the team is working on considerate to engage the community on data ownership issues. So finally, to summarize all of our outcomes today, we have so far trained 10 fellows on PTA methods and forum design who have created training curriculum forum and facilitation guide for future use in the PTA network. They are piloting these forums using various synchronous and asynchronous and virtual means and covering a wide variety of issues from social justice and equity from urban heat island issues to community on data, food security, water equity and environmental sustainability. Because of the shift of the timeline, our evaluation component has also extended now to begin from November once the forum is completed and it's going to continue to January. We are so far extremely pleased with the outcome, especially in Waco who have actually gone the full distance and have actually engaged a good members of their community and getting ready to present and share the outcomes in community forum. I'm looking forward to hearing similar outcomes from all of our other team members. Thank you. Hi, I'm Margaret Hagan. I'm the executive director of the legal design lab at Stanford Law School. And I've been working on a project with the Pitt UN network called the Pitt case studies platform. So our group at Stanford, along with partners at Howard University and Georgetown University and their law center have been building a website platform that gathers together case studies of public interest tech projects that have come out of university programs and classes. Our real motivation in this is that we as teachers of public interest tech classes and our respective universities really wanted more examples, real life stories and documentation of how to teach this type of class well so we can be better teachers of it. And also to have case studies for our students so that as they're forming teams and taking on these really kind of interesting but challenging topics that they have examples from other past student teams about how they've done research, made strong partnerships, created new technology projects, tested them and possibly even spun them out or have dealt with failures, setbacks, ethical issues and other kind of questions. So the whole motivation of the platform is that we can from our university network gather together these stories both from the perspective of teachers and students and even some of our partners from the community to have documentation of how a project emerges, the narrative of how it develops and also the outcomes that result mixed in with ethical and teaching points about key decisions that were made or barriers or hardships that were faced during the projects. So we have our project platform live. It's at pitcases.org. It's still in a prototype form. We have several case studies on the platform and we're looking for more. So this is also my plug that if you do have a class you've taught or student teams that have emerged out of your classes with public interest tech, we're actively looking for more cases to profile on the platform. But if you do go to the website you'll see that we have several case studies and teaching resources from wonderful members of our PITU network about how to structure these types of classes, how to coach teams, how to build partnerships and from the student's perspective, how to go from getting a really difficult challenge with a public interest tech partner and then carrying that forward to some kind of impact. So we've had a really great time talking to a lot of different folks about classes from public health to law to language access to smart cities. So we're making this platform to really be policy area agnostic and trying to learn from each other across these typical silos. Some of our main challenges as we've been building the platform has been getting people's time and access to really hear the full story because we are trying to get very detailed documentation of how these classes and projects evolved as well as the actual materials that were used and could possibly be reused or repurposed in other classes. And we know that it's a big ask, especially during this very stressful year. So we're hoping that we can get more and more case studies up and running on the platform. So again, come and check it out. And if you have ideas for cases you might wanna be profiled. The typical way that we've been running it is that we have wonderful team members and students who do interviews and write up the case. And then we format it, edit it and present it on the website for the public audience. So the state of the project right now, like I said, we have the website up and running in a kind of prototype form. After our platform gets probably about 10 case studies up we're gonna have some discussions about where all that content should live if we keep this independent website or we integrate it into the PIT-UN network in a more seamless way. So we'll be thinking about that, but we really do know that there's a lot of value in having this documentation and these stories and this repository of resources in a central and accessible place for all the different university teachers and students. So we're very happy for your feedback and input. That's one of our main goals in the next few months. So if you have any interest in sharing things or in possibly using some of these case studies in your syllabus, in your own teaching and planning we'd love to hear about if they're useful or not. So yeah, come check out our website. It's at pitcases.org. Leave us feedback. Tell us about some case studies you might have in mind. And on behalf of my partners, Tanina at Georgetown and Noha at Howard and my team at Stanford, I just wanna say that we really had a great time working together and we hope that we've made something that can be useful to others in the network. Thank you. Hi, my name is Dr. Susan Imberman and I'm faculty at the College of Staten Island. I'm also the former university associate dean of technology education for the City University of New York. Our project used open educational resources to motivate more curriculum design and public interest tech. But while open educational resources, why are they suited for the creation and dissemination of the curriculum? First, what is OER? Well, OER is any type of free and openly licensed course content that's usually associated with the creative commons license. And the key here is that it's freely shared by its derivative versions. Any kind of artifact that has been modified is able to be shared under this creative commons license. CUNY was motivated to get into the OER space by the cost of rising textbooks costs compared to that of other costs in academia such as tuition and room and ward. OER has been shown to contribute to student success. Textbooks are expensive, students tend sometimes not to buy them. Financially covers this, but sometimes financially doesn't show up until a few weeks into the semester and students need their textbooks day one. Zero textbook course offerings have been shown to give better student performance and tests created under OER save students significant amounts of money. In CUNY, we had 30,760 course sections impacting 660,075 students of zero textbook course. In essence, we saved our students approximately $66 million. And to put it succinctly, my colleague Katie Kamisky said, OER is it? So the creative commons license dictates how restrictive you are when you share your artifacts. We require that the share is no more restrictive than a creative commons license of CC by NCSA. In other words, give attribution to the author, share your resource with the same creative commons license. And if anybody who's interested in using your work for non-commercial purposes, they need to have consulted the author on that. It is not hard to find OER. Once created, you can upload and link your curriculum into various textbook sites if you have a textbook. And there are also large repositories that collate all these kinds of materials. Also, you can find OER using Google's advanced search. There is an option there for looking for items that are associated with a creative commons license. So OER allows us to create living artifacts for disciplines that are evolving such as PIP. So I'd like to speak a bit more specifically about our own PIPNIC project. It is most motivated by my belief that my colleagues are creative, conscientious, and in short, excellent pedagogues. Essentially, it takes a village to create and share curriculum. So I've had previous OER projects learn from them, modify them in order to use this project. We created OER for computer science general education courses for courses that are interdisciplinary between computer science and other disciplines. And for our industry adjuncts who are part of our Tech and Residence core program. So our project objective was to leverage the expertise and creativity of CUNY faculty to create PIP and most importantly, share this widely. So in order to do this effectively, we needed to define exactly what public interest technology is for faculty. And there seems to be a lot of consensus out there as to the gist of what PIP is, although the various definitions tend to vary in terms of their generality or in terms of the specificity. But essentially what we told our constituents was, do good and please do no harm. But the quintessential question is how do you get faculty to buy it? And the main way of doing that is to recognize that faculty have other options and other asks for their time academically. So we recognize this and recognize that their time is valuable and we offered them many grants to do this curriculum development. So if you just wanted to dip your toes in the water and try this out, we offered $1,000 for the development of a PIP unit of study, essentially six hours of course study all the way up to creating courses or creating a track of PIP within a major to interdisciplinary connections between courses in the humanities and the technologies. We ended up with 13 funded projects and they ranged in all kinds of areas all the way from game development to smart cities, of course, ethics, food additives was an interesting one. Faculty range from five senior colleges into community colleges. These were spread across the entire city of New York and we funded three tier one, five tier two and five tiers three and four projects of our faculty that participated 17 were full-time faculty and three were adjunct faculty. In order to share effectively, we created a group on OER Commons in public interest technology and to date there are 18 resources there that each resource represents an individual piece of curriculum but some of those resources actually point to multiple links to almost additional course and entire courses in it. We have opened this site up for participation by anybody who wishes to share their curriculum. The high school has been very a good participant in this project. They link most of their content up here and as far as assessments to date, the amount of materials available as OER for now our 18 resources are great ends of December. So there will be much more material available. Unfortunately due to COVID, a lot of our faculty had to pivot to online and that caused delay in their development of curriculum for this project. But each resource that was available on OER Commons can be a lecture or an activity and many contain links to multiple lectures and ancillary material. In terms of how visible we are since April, only we've been doing this for a short time. We've had 150 views and 42 downloads. So in summary, our PIC project focused on PIC curriculum creation. We're sharing this widely. We also strongly believe that this is a very reproducible work, any campus can create PIC in this manner and feel free to link your PIC creations to the PIC group on OER Commons. Thank you for listening to my talk. I am perfectly happy to answer any of your questions during the session. Have a wonderful day and a wonderful time at the conference.