PRELIMINARY/PARTIAL DRAFT: 
To be submitted to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Faculty 
Workshop on Using Satellite Data and Computing Technologies for Research and Education 
in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 1. Introduction Computer-based training 
technology offers great benefit to the earth and atmospheric sciences, through 
the ability to improve visualization and interactive analysis. One area in which 
this is particularly true is instruction related to satellite remote sensing, 
which requires image display and animation to fully demonstrate the physical processes 
and concepts revealed in the data. The Unidata Program of the University Corporation 
for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) provides meteorological data to a broad group 
of university and affiliated educational and research groups, as well as computer-bases 
applications software for scientific analysis which is widely used in college-level 
instructions. As part of this mission, significant resources of satellite remote 
sensing data are made available to colleges and universities on a daily basis. 
To promote the effective use of computer-assisted instruction which utilize these 
data, the Unidata Program and the UCAR Cooperative Program for Meteorological 
Training and Education (COMET) conducted a faculty workshop during 22-27 June 
1997 entitled "Using Satellite Data and Computing Technologies for Research and 
Education in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences". Unidata and COMET have a successful 
history of working together in the development of faculty workshops which blend 
advanced instructional methods with diverse observational data and meteorological 
forecast models (Wash et al., 1992; Ramamurthy et al., 1995), and the Summer 1997 
continued this approach with an emphasis on satellite remote sensing and the use 
of web-based communication methods. Discussions at the 1994 Unidata Workshop entitled 
Teaching Mesoscale Meteorology in the Age of the Modernized National Weather Service 
served as the motivation for the development and implementation of the 1997 workshop. 
From the 'Town Hall" discussions held at the conference, a clear need emerged 
that a future workshop should build upon the curriculum recommendations, scientific 
concepts, and teaching methods presented at the 1994 workshop. This workshop should 
specialize in the use of satellite data, availability of computer-based information, 
the need for information exchange, and the available meteorological interactive 
software tools. The overall goals for the 1997 workshop that emerged were: 1.) 
To communicate to university scientists how emerging analysis technology and computer-interactive 
training can improve college- and graduate-level education and research capability, 
and 2.) To utilize the GOES and other new satellite data sources to enhance conceptual 
and practical training in the atmospheric and related sciences, while increasing 
student understanding of interdisciplinary environmental processes. With goals 
developed and venue established, Unidata submitted a proposal to the National 
Science Foundation and COMET. The National Science Foundation and National Weather 
Service jointly agreed to sponsor this Unidata Workshop. The University Corporation 
for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Unidata, and COMET (Cooperative Program for Meteorology, 
Education and Training) jointly organized the workshop held at NCAR in Boulder 
from 22-27 June, 1997. Table 1 lists the contributers to workshop planning and 
instruction, while Table 2 lists lecture speakers who were invited to make presentations 
on satellite remote sensing applications and topics in computer-based education. 
Sixty-five participants and speakers attended the interactive, hands-on workshop; 
first attending lectures on Satellite Meteorology and then participating in pedagogical 
lab activities. The outcome clearly demonstrated the creativity and knowledge 
that can be shared among colleagues to enhance education and learning techniques 
in complimentary forums, such as institutions of higher learning, international 
educational institutions, and secondary schools. Please also refer to the following 
web site for examples of the presentations developed by the participants: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu 
2. Plenary speakers on scientific content subject Don Johnson (University of Wisconsin-Madison) 
presented the Keynote Address, in which he challenged the faculty to develop new 
means of communicating a knowlege base from which students can visualize the complex 
interactions and principles of atmospheric phenomena. He used examples from ongoing 
educational outreach efforts to demonstrate the requirements and benefits of increasing 
the fundamental understanding of students in physical and dynamic processes. Jim 
Purdom (NOAA/NESDIS) provided an overview of radiative transfer concepts, satellite 
instrument channel selection, and spectral reflectance and emittance properties 
of atmospheric and land targets. He discussed several useful web sites for satellite 
data and technical documentation. An excellent summary on the use of microwave 
satellite observations to map global atmospheric temperature patterns was presented 
by John Christy of the University of Alabama-Hunstville. He described aspects 
of the radiative transfer retrieval process, the use of radiosonde data for intercomparison 
and issues related to instrument calibration, and presented results related to 
long-term global trends. Steve Ackerman (University of Wisconsin-Madison) provided 
valuable guidelines for the selection and implementation of instructional technology, 
in which he emphasized that these technologies must increase student-faculty communication, 
build cooperation among students, encourage exploration of a subject, accomodate 
different learning styles, and allow prompt feedback to student responses or inquiries. 
He also described a new web-based course for the subject of remote sensing instrument 
technology, which includes interactive exercises related to satellite sensor design 
on topics such as signal-to-noise ratio and image pixel resolution. The Director 
of the Unidata Program Center, David Fulker, presented a lecture on applications 
of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology. The lecture slides were 
prepared by John Snow (University of Oklahoma) who was not able to attend the 
Workshop. Dr. Fulker led an active discussion on the importance of practical training 
in meteorological applications, noting the increasing interplay of various environmental 
disciplines and the economic impacts of meteorological conditions and events. 
The data merging and analysis tools of GIS can be used to improve the utilization 
of meteorological data in teaching, environmental management, and economic development. 
John Merrill (University of Rhode Island) spoke on methods for mapping particulate 
aerosol over the ocean using satellite data, including application to styd of 
the role of aerosol in radiative forcing and the global energy balance. He gave 
a very useful review of radiative transfer principles which students should understand 
in order to use and evaluate the satellite-derived aerosol optical thickness parameters. 
Dr. Merrill also explained the use of multischannel satellite image data for screening 
cloudy pixels from the global dataset. Chris Velden (University of Wisconsin-Madison) 
described and demonstrated the use of satellite imagery which is sensitive to 
upper tropospheric water vapor and clouds to teach concepts in atmospheric dynamics 
and weather forecasting. He provided many very good links to image resources, 
including material on production of multi-level wind vectors from the satellite 
water vapor imagery. 3. Educational Technology Presentations One of the highlights 
of the educational technology presentations was delivered by Tom Reeves of the 
University of Georgia. Tom spoke about the importance of mental models in science 
education, and described how the emergence of the World Wide Web in education 
required an understanding of not only the technology, but also its pedagaogical 
dimensions. Mental models are interconnected knowledge structures formed in the 
mind in response to stimulus. The importance of mental models in science education 
lies in the fact that students bring to science courses informal, yet surprisingly 
robust mental models that may interfere with the development of appropriate mental 
models. According to Reeves, the effectiveness of learning on the Web is a function 
of the skills and experience learners have with it and the degree to which curricula 
and Web materials have been designed to support appropriate pedagogical dimensions. 
Another highlight of the educational presentations was delivered by Gene Takle 
of Iowa State University. Gene presented some of the online material he has developed 
for his Global Change course at Iowa. Takle stressed how the Web-based components 
of the course offers students a much more extensive resource and functionality 
base and allows them to regulate their own learning in terms of rate, style, and 
potential. Takle also made several recommendations for getting into Web-based 
course development, including the importance of teamwork and involving students 
from the onset of the project. Paul Ruscher of Florida State University presented 
and discussed the development of web-based courses taught at FSU including a course 
on satellite meteorology and remote sensing and a course on earth science in elementary 
childhood education. He discussed instructional strategies emphasizing that the 
course designer needs to specify what data is required for the course, distinguishing 
between what you think you need and the actual data needs of the course, what 
is the cost of data, methods to analyze and display data. He further pointed out 
the necessity of providing a justification for the cost of the data required for 
a course. Dr. Ruscher discussed the role of the instructor in using various data 
resources in a course. He stated that it is necessary for the instructor to be 
familiar with the sources of data i.e. satellite, observational, models. Data 
should not be treated as a black box, but rather the instructor needs to know 
the details of the data sources and real-time data and be able to transmit that 
to the students. He further stated that it is important to develop the relationship 
of specific course topics to other geoscience disciplines (i.e. satellite orbits, 
radiative transfer, history of science). Dr. Ruscher demonstrated the web-based 
course developed at FSU for earth and elementary childhood education. The course 
integrates lecture and laboratory for a variety of topics each week using web-based 
components. He also discussed K-12 initiatives that use satellite imagery. The 
Florida Explores program bring satellite imagery into the classroom, including 
direct receipt of polar orbiting satellite data. Currently there are 180 schools 
in Florida participating in this program. 4. Panel discussions related to instructional 
design and development [Yarger, Ramamurthy] 5. Subject-area lab activities The 
participants were grouped into three development areas according to their primary 
interests. These were: (A) Survey Course in Meteorology and Earth Sciences (B) 
Weather Forecasting and Mesoscale Processes (C) Climate, Hydrology and Earth-Atmosphere 
Processes Group lab activities began with an introduction to pedagogical concepts 
and instructional design principles. Participants were asked to define instructional 
objectives which could be better met through the use of interactive computer utilization. 
Examples provided by the faculty in Group A for their objectives included improvement 
in instructional methods and content, and a broad range of goals for improving 
visualization and student understanding of mesoscale meteorological processes, 
atmospheric dynamics, orographic flow, cloud development observed in satellite 
imagery, demonstration of hydrometeorological principles, precipitation estimation, 
case study analysis, short-term forecasting, and surface-atmosphere interaction. 
Presentations by computer experts and meteorologists from Unidata provided the 
faculty with information on how satellite data access and processing could be 
used to produce examples of the processes and features they wish to illustrate 
to their students. Speakers from COMET gave the faculty graphics of satellite 
image examples extracted from the COMET training modules, as well as web-based 
instructional templates, which could be used as resources in the development efforts. 
Each group divided into smaller teams to devise mechanisms to use interactive 
presentation of satellite imagery and datasets to address the specific group objectives. 
The primary resources and lab instruction utilized web-based software and imagery, 
with additional textual and dataset input from users according to their educational 
objectives. Each of the three groups took a different approach to how their web 
pages were designed. This gave everyone a different feel on how these types of 
pages could be designed. One group used the web to design course outline pages 
as an HTML-format syllabus, while a second chose to emphasize imagery and instructional 
examples rather than course structure. Another group used the COMET templates 
to put together Web based lessons or tutorials. The lab sessions were a success 
because the expertise was there to help out those who had problems. Having two 
to four HTML experts in each section was quite valuable, in that there was rarely 
a situation where someone went without help. Also, the aim of completing an exercise 
was critical in order to make sure the participants realized that HTML web design 
was possible and that productive materials could be produced. Web-based exercises 
addressed specific topics in the courses which the faculty teach. In Group B, 
teams produced lab exercise material on the use of satellite remote sensing for 
applications such as jet streak identification and interpretation of jet stream 
circulation, recognition of important differences in the temporal and spatial 
scale of meteorological processes, extracting synoptic-scale and mesoscale information 
from water vapor imagery not available in other image channels, evaluating supercell 
convective systems, and characterizing precipitation patterns with combined satellite 
and radar imagery. The concept of 'enabling objectives' was used to assist the 
faculty to select and modify their instructional materials to directly meet the 
needs of students to improve their analysis methodology and physical understanding. 
Final days of the workshop allowed a substantial amount of time for the development 
groups and individual teams to build their web-based exercises into materials 
which they could utilize in the classroom. The results showed a significant utilization 
of diverse data sources and integrated concept development. The Group C lab materials, 
for instance, demonstrated web- based instruction in climate, hydrology and earth-atmosphere 
processes exploring moisture convergence and flash flooding with web-accessible 
mesoscale models, use of the web to track climate-related news stories and related 
scientific content, technical applications in agroclimatology, applying web-based 
animation and graphics to explain the evolution and impacts of El Nino, merging 
satellite imagery with field observations for teaching meteorology, relating anomalies 
in precipitation, temperature and snowpack to river hydrographs, and selecting 
microwave satellite imagery to explain radiative transfer principles and analysis 
guidelines. In the final session of the conference, each group presented samples 
of the web-based instructional materials developed by their teams, leading to 
sharing of ideas and materials among the entire faculty in the audience. 6. Workshop 
evaluation A written 'exit survey' was distributed to the workshop attendees on 
the afternoon prior to the conference completion. A large percentage of these 
was returned the following day, and response summary information is provided below: 
1.) Rate the success and usefulness of the following components of the workshop 
on a scale of 1 (lowest success rating) to 10 (highest success), and provide comments 
on any or all of these. (a) Lecture Presentations Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
# of Responses 2 3 6 12 6 5 Selected Comments * Well organized, high-quality presentations. 
Interesting and useful. Speakers were excellent; much better than typical. Professionally 
developed and given. Fascinating material, generally well presented. Wide variety. 
* Could have used more info on satellite imagery/soundings. * I was especially 
interested in the presentations on instructional technologies. * Would like to 
have seen more examples of student lessons (not necessarily an entire course). 
Pedagogical material was very good and useful. * Enjoyed multi-media presentations. 
(b) Panel Discussions Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Responses 1 1 6 5 5 7 9 
Selected Comments * Very informative. Stimulating. Interesting and useful. * Very 
frank discussion of academic world and problems. Different perspectives. * Good 
discussion about school recognition for instructional development. * I was particularly 
interested in the comments made about the future of research in education. I was 
motivated to pursue development of instructional technologies. (c) Lab Presentations 
Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Responses 1 1 2 3 9 10 4 3 Selected Comments 
* Tutors were experienced and knowledgeable. Presentations were well-organized 
and presented in a clear manner. * Laboratory presentations were extremely practical 
and helpful. Much time and effort put into the presentations. * Strongly oriented 
toward application of satellite data to instruction. Not sufficient attention 
given to research applications. * Being made aware of the resources available 
at the Unidata Web-site was very enlightening. * Sometimes overwhelming. Suggest 
doing a little HTML work each day. * One-on-one instruction a plus. We learned 
mostly on our own or with 1-on-1 questions. (d) Hands-on Development of Instructional 
Materials Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Responses 1 2 4 14 10 3 Selected Comments 
* Best part. Learned a great deal. Very valuable. Very well done. Most useful. 
Very helpful. I learned a lot and hope to little-by-little use it in the classroom. 
* This workshop finally gave me the opportunity to experiment with coding in HTML. 
I didn't have time to put much thought into the instructional value of my efforts. 
* Support staff was excellent. Expert guidance, if needed. * There was enough 
equipment for all participants. GIS instruction was good also. * Excellent way 
to bring all material together and to apply what was learned. (e) Workshop Logistics 
and Organization Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Responses 2 3 8 21 Selected 
Comments * Lodging, food, transportation, and hospitality were all excellent. 
Very well planned. * I feel we were treated royally. Very friendly staff. Good 
job! Outstanding! * Well-organized, good accommodations, helpful people. Lectures 
& labs set up well. * Organization and schedule ran smoothly. One of the best 
organized conferences I've ever been to. Kept all to a tight schedule. Logistics 
were efficient and effective. 2.) Describe your reaction to the merging of scientific 
lectures and pedagogical/ instructional design presentations in this workshop. 
Did it allow you to develop new ideas and methods to enhance your teaching? * 
Yes, I feel that I can enrich my lectures and facilitate group discussion. * Good 
mix. I certainly have the tools now to enhance the classroom and interactive assignments. 
I have many new ideas. * Good concept. I was given some new ideas for developing 
teaching methods and would like to see some examples of incorporating these pedagogical 
concepts into teaching. * This is the first time I recall experiencing pedagogy 
face to face. * When I went to develop the Web page, I was able to begin developing 
something that would require the student to get actively involved in the learning 
process. * Yes, especially the lectures on instructional design. Really enjoyed 
seeing what other people had tried/developed. * Potential action on long-standing 
dreams. * Definitely. Very informative workshop. 3.) Please describe how you might 
implement the materials, resources and methods which were presented and developed 
at this workshop. * I will probably encourage and require more student use of 
existing WWW resources in doing class assignments. I am inspired to begin producing 
Web-based instructional material. Using the Internet, we can use more new, complete 
data. * I've started a Web exercise and plan to develop a home page for this fall 
which is impressive because I never did HTML before. * I hope to use some of the 
techniques learned here to create more innovative teaching methods including use 
of the Internet and possibly creating Internet exercises. * Gives me a good start 
in getting familiar with remote sensing. Will implement my teaching, especially 
using information from the Internet. * My meteorology course this fall will involve 
PC-McIDAS and the Internet. It will be a different and much improved course. 4.) 
What challenges do you anticipate in finding the time or resources for this implementation? 
* Twelve units of teaching load. Heavy teaching and administration loads each 
quarter will make it nearly impossible to do all the things I would like. My teaching 
load is 12 contact hours plus all the other responsibilities. * Great challenges, 
especially finding time to develop materials and for getting school recognition 
for instructional development. Challenge is to make the time to become involved 
in the development of instructional materials. Time will be a big issue. * I have 
to implement this technology little-by-little since "publications" carry much 
higher weight to achieve my tenure. * Major challenge. I will likely do this at 
night or, if lucky, get help from a TA who can handle it. It is worthwhile and 
will be done. * I think the functionality of integrating course work on the Web 
will make it time well spent. It really isn't all that hard. * A system administrator 
is crucial to the success of Internet teaching. Many departments do not have a 
full-time computer technician . 5.) Rate (1 = lowest; 10 = highest) the overall 
value of the workshop to you: Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Responses 1 1 4 
14 8 6 Selected Comments * One of the best I've attended. A most worthwhile experience! 
* I applaud this effort in bringing research, teaching and technology into one 
workshop. We need much more of this. It forced me to re-evaluate my teaching. 
* Great opportunity for the participants to learn new tools and update content 
to apply in the classroom and expose students to high tech and sound science. 
* The things I learned about instructional development are of great value to me. 
* It was a wonderful experience for me. Your hard work, thorough preparation, 
professionalism, and friendliness are greatly appreciated. * The Unidata program, 
and specifically PC-McIDAS, are a "show piece" on our campus. * The workshop was 
managed extremely well. The balance between the components (lectures, labs, etc.) 
was just right. * You have renewed the faith in NCAR/NSF commitment to upgrading 
education. * Teachers learn from each other, but we also were guided nicely by 
the UCAR staff and presenters. Thanks so much for giving me this opportunity. 
* Aside from all the lectures and lab instruction, the new people resources I 
have now (from Unidata and the participants) will be very valuable. * I got much 
more from this workshop than I had expected, and I am delighted by that. I was 
surprised to learn just how enabling the Web has become for the teaching of meteorology. 
* I hope there are more special lectures in the fields of meteorology, climate 
and hydrology by using the new methods and new data. * Maybe the next workshop 
should be a follow-up to this one where progress since this workshop can be assessed. 
I would like to see small college representation on panels. 7. Conclusions [Dempsey, 
Koch] ... Participants enjoyed the content and the wide range of materials, even 
though it came close to overwhelming some, kept most of the participants interested 
throughout. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge the support of UCAR and the 
many people whose efforts combined to make it a success. In particular, it would 
not have been possible without the financial support of the National Science Foundation 
and the COMET Program. Sandra Nilsson provided the major organizational effort 
which insured that the many details necessary to carry out the workshop and the 
publication of this article were completed. Thanks also to the Unidata Program 
and COMET staffs and especially David Himes and Mike Schmidt for the computer 
design set-up; and COMET, Iowa State University and other pedagogical instructors 
who took the responsibility for lab instructional format and education. Finally, 
thanks to the lecturers and participants, all of whom provided enthusiasm, ideas, 
and the time to make lectures, presentations, and activities a success. For a 
complete list of speakers and instructors refer to the workshop web site. References 
Ramamurthy, M.K., C. Murphy, J. Moore, M. Wetzel, D. Knight, P. Ruscher, S. Mullen, 
R. DeSouza, D.S. Hawk, and D. Fulker, 1995: Teaching mesoscale meteorology in 
the age of the modernized National Weather Service: A report on the Unidata/COMET 
Workshop. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 76, 2463-2473. Wash, C.H., R.L. DeSouza, M. 
Ramamurthy, A. Anderson, G. Byrd, J. Justus, H. Edmon, and P. Samson, 1992: Teaching 
interactive computer systems: A report on the Unidata/COMET/STORM workshop on 
synoptic/mesoscale instruction. Bull., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 73, 1440-1447. ----------------------------------------- 
Table 1. Workshop Leaders Workshop Chairpersons: David Dempsey, Melanie Wetzel 
Lab Moderators: David Knight, Steve Koch, Charlie Murphy, Mohan Ramamurthy Recorders: 
Sally Bates, Jennie Moody, Michael Morgan, Doug Yarger Instructional Designers: 
Brian Heckman, Mary Marlino, Tom Reeves, Woody Wang Author/Programmers: Pete Boysen, 
Matt Hicks, Mike Taber, Dan Vietor Unidata Systems Experts: Steve Chiswell, Don 
Murray, Tom Yoksas Subject Matter Experts: Greg Byrd, Katy Ginger, Grant Petty, 
Tony Mostek, Table 2. Invited Lectures [list speaker and lecture topic] Figures: 
Photos of lab activities, screen graphics from example instructional materials, 
etc.