Ava Dean’s METEOR Program Experience
My name is Ava, and I am a sophomore at George Washington University studying Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, as well as Psychology and Brain Sciences. I have also completed coursework in the GWTeach program. I applied for the METEOR program after taking a GWTeach class, where I learned about developing STEM curricula. The opportunity to integrate biomedical research into a classroom setting intrigued me.
In my primary and secondary education, science classes often lacked engaging laboratory experiments and meaningful curricula related to biomedical sciences. This made science feel abstract and disconnected from real life. I had no exposure to STEM’s societal impact, which made it seem inaccessible. It wasn’t until college, when I took courses in psychology, and speech and hearing sciences, that I realized my interest in these subjects. The METEOR program’s focus on neuroscience this past cycle, aligned with my passion and provided an opportunity to develop educational materials I wish I had earlier; resources that might have sparked my interest in STEM much sooner.
I pursued GWTeach coursework because I have always been drawn to careers that involved using knowledge to help others, whether in teaching or in healthcare. My short-term goal in METEOR was to develop a lesson plan that not only teaches about biological and physiological system but also connects foundational science concepts to real-world applications and their implications for public health. This connection made science more engaging for me, and I wished I had encountered a lesson that made this link earlier in my education.
My long-term goal is to apply an educational mindset to clinical practice by effectively communicating complex information to those outside my field. Through METEOR, I had the opportunity to shadow healthcare professionals, which revealed that clinicians are also educators. Patients rely on them to explain diagnoses, outlooks, and treatment implications in an accessible way. Observing my mentor’s communication with patients mirrored the instructional methods emphasized in my GWTeach coursework; ensuring comprehension, using multiple modalities to communicate information, and assessing understanding through questions. This experience reinforced my belief that teaching is fundamental in any field I pursue, particularly in my main area of study, clinical speech and hearing sciences.
Overview of Research Project
My research examined how social determinants of health impact language outcomes in children with congenital heart defects (CHD). Previous studies have linked CHD to brain differences that affect childhood development, particularly leading to difficulties in executive functioning skills such as planning, processing, and problem-solving. One of my mentors, Dr. Kirsty Coulter, was investigating how children’s environments influence these cognitive abilities, using the Childhood Opportunity Index (COI) (found at: https://www.diversitydatakids.org/), which quantifies access to education, healthcare, and social support based on zip code.
The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Program at Children’s National is a database of demographic data, neuropsychological test results, and medical history of children with CHD. The collection of this data over the course of many years and with thousands of patients was the main source of data for this project. Using this data, I focused on the relationship between COI and language outcomes, selecting measures that assess different aspects of language use and executive function. These included:
Phonemic Fluency – naming words starting with a specific letter over the course of a minute, a task reliant on white matter in the frontal lobe (often impacted by CHD).
Semantic Fluency – naming items in a category over the course of a minute, which requires less white matter and primarily engages the left temporal lobe.
Verbal IQ – integrating multiple brain regions to assess verbal reasoning, comprehension, word use, and other skills.
We developed the research question: Does social opportunities influence language outcomes in children with critical congenital heart disease (cCHD)?
Using multiple regression analysis, we found:
CHD severity significantly impacted verbal IQ and phonemic fluency but not semantic fluency, likely due to frontal lobe involvement.
COI was a significant predictor for all language outcomes, with the strongest effect on verbal IQ, followed by semantic fluency, then phonemic fluency.
One challenge in this research was defining “language outcomes” and selecting appropriate measures. This required reviewing neuropsychological assessments, understanding how CHD impacts different brain regions and how we could represent that through certain language measures. Through this process, I developed a stronger ability to interpret research articles, synthesize prior findings, and critically assess how studies contribute to new knowledge. I also gained a deeper appreciation for the research process, from data collection to analysis, and the years of work that go into maintaining large-scale databases for human subjects research.
GW Courses and Curriculum
The METEOR lectures provided valuable insights beyond specific information gained from my research focus, exposing me to diverse neuroscience topics and research methodologies. These lectures supplemented my knowledge by introducing perspectives and techniques I would not have encountered through shadowing or mentor discussions alone. Having a specific research project along with these lectures allowed me to think critically about how my research project was connected to other subfields of neuroscience.
Particularly useful were lectures on the research process, including the use of sources in research, hypothesis development, and statistical analysis. While my mentor provided guidance on this subject matter, the structured lessons reinforced key research principles and helped solidify my understanding of scientific inquiry. The curriculum also broadened my awareness of neuroscience subfields, opening my eyes to niche areas of the brain and human behavior that I would have never naturally learned about.
Conclusion
METEOR significantly boosted my confidence in engaging with research, making what once felt abstract and inaccessible more tangible and achievable. Before this experience, I never saw myself as someone who could conduct actual scientific research, because it always seemed like this was a process done solely by experts in isolated labs. Now, I understand the rigorous thought process that goes into developing a research question and appreciate how small discoveries contribute to broader scientific knowledge.
For future METEOR fellows, I encourage coming into the program with the mindset of a student being in a classroom. The specific information taught through the METEOR program is important, but observing about how that information is presented and what was helpful for my understanding was valuable thinking about how to develop a lesson plan.
This program also deepened my understanding of the barriers to science accessibility. An issue I often learn about in my college coursework is the difficulty that the general public has in accessing and understanding research and health information. METEOR helped dismantle this barrier for me, and I hope that in developing research-based lesson plans, future METEOR fellows can do the same for younger students; helping them see science as something they can actively participate in.
