Transcript www.asbmb.org

ASBMB Special Symposium:
Student Centered Education in the
Molecular and Life Sciences II
University of Richmond
July 21, 2011
Transforming Undergraduate
Education in STEM (TUES)
An example of a program to improve
undergraduate education
Mary Lee Ledbetter
Email: [email protected]
Division of Undergraduate Education
National Science Foundation
1
Outline of Session
 The TUES Program (formerly CCLI)
 What’s new
 What does a TUES type 1 proposal look
like?
 What Happens to Your Proposal?
 Common strengths and weaknesses
 Questions
2
Transforming Undergraduate Education in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (TUES)
DUE’s broadest, most flexible program
 Purpose of the Program
 To improve the quality of STEM education for all
students by targeting activities affecting learning
environments, course content, curricula, and
educational practices
 Supports projects at all levels of undergraduate
education
 Supports activities in the classroom, laboratory,
and field settings
CCLI became TUES last year
3
TUES: Three Scales of Projects
Type 1 Projects (small grants)
Up to $200,000 ($250,000 when 4-year & 2-year
schools collaborate); 2 to 3 years (can occur at a
single institution with primarily local impact)
Type 2 Projects (medium grants)
Up to $600,000; 2 to 4 years; build on smallerscale proven ideas. Diverse users at several
institutions
Type 3 Projects (large grants)
Up to $5,000,000; negotiable; 3 to 5 years;
combine proven results and mature products.
Involve several diverse institutions
4
TUES: Additional opportunity
Central Resource Projects:
 Leadership activities in TUES
 Research or evaluation on the TUES
program itself
 Meetings for TUES PIs or a large subset to
encourage cooperation among PIs
 Budget depends on scope and scale of the
project
 Need close consultation with the program 5
Developing
Faculty
Expertise
Implementing
Educational
Innovations
Assessing
Learning and
Evaluating
Innovations
Project
Components
Creating New
Learning Materials and
Teaching Strategies
Research on
Undergraduate
STEM
Teaching and
Learning
TUES “Cycle of Innovation”
6
TUES - Creating New Learning
Materials and Teaching Strategies
 Type 1 projects can focus on piloting new
educational materials and instructional
methodologies; Type 2 projects on larger-scale
development, broad testing, and assessment.
 Type 1 projects can focus on outcomes at a
single site, but must include assessment and
community engagement.
 Can be combined with other components,
especially faculty development in Type 2.
7
TUES - Developing Faculty Expertise
 Methods that enable faculty to gain expertise
 May range from short-term workshops to sustained
activities
 Foster new communities of scientists in
undergraduate education
 Cost-effective professional development
 Diverse group of faculty
 Leading to implementation
 May be combined with other components, especially
materials development and assessment
 Excellent opportunities exist for you to
participate in regional and national workshops
8
TUES - Implementing Educational
Innovations
 Phase 1 projects generally
 Projects must result in improved STEM education
at local institution using exemplary materials,
laboratory experiences, or educational practices
developed and tested at other institutions.
 TUES-Implementation projects must stand as
models for broader adaptation in the community.
 Proposals may request funds in any budget
category supported by NSF, including
instrumentation
9
TUES - Assessing Learning and
Evaluating Innovations
 Design and test new assessment and
evaluation tools and processes.
 Apply new and existing tools to conduct
broad-based assessments
 Must span multiple projects and be of general
interest
10
TUES - Conducting Research on
STEM Teaching and Learning
 Develop new research on teaching and
learning
 Synthesize previous results and theories
 Practical focus
 Testable new ideas
 Impact on STEM educational practices.
 May be combined with other components
11
Lessons From Prior Rounds
of the Program
 Type 1 is an open competition – many new
players;
 Type 2 requires substantial demonstrated
preliminary work;
 Type 3 is for projects from an experienced
team with a national scale.
12
Examples of Phase (Type) 1
CCLI Projects
 David Jackson, Dickinson College “Integrating Photon
Quantum Mechanics in the Undergraduate Curriculum,” NSF
award 0737230
 David Roundy et al, Oregon State U, Michael Rogers,
Ithaca College, John Thompson, U Maine “Collaborative
Research: Paradigms in Physics: Creating and Testing Materials
to Facilitate Dissemination of the Energy and Entropy Module”
NSF awards 0837278, 0837301, 0837214
 Mark Reeves, George Washington U “A Bio-Focused
Introductory Physics Course”, NSF award 0837278
 Michael Schatz, Georgia Tech “Transforming Homework into
Cyberlearning in an Introductory STEM Course”, NSF award
0942076.
13
What was new for 2010
 TYPES have replaced PHASES
 Raised limit on budget size ($200K, $600K, $5M,
$3M)
 Explicit encouragement of projects with the potential
to be transformative
 New Central Resource Project opportunity
 Increased emphasis on building on knowledge of how
student learn (explore the literature on teaching and
learning), building on prior work, and encouraging
widespread adoption of excellent teaching methods.
14
What is new for 2011
 Increased emphasis on projects that have the
potential to transform undergraduate education
 Special interest in widespread adoption of
exemplary materials
 Larger projects should promote adaptation
elsewhere
 Increased emphasis on institutionalization of project
and sustainability beyond the grant period
 While some added emphases, no significant change
in direction
 Remains DUE’s core program that funds the best
ideas in the disciplines (and interdisciplinary projects)
15
Human Subjects and the IRB
(Institutional Review Board)
 Projects collecting data from or on students or faculty
members are considered to involve human subjects
and require IRB review
 Proposal should indicate IRB status on cover
 Exempt, Approved, Pending
 Grants will require official statement from IRB declaring
the research exempt or approved before they can be
funded
 See “Human Subjects” section in GPG
 NOTE: For TUES, IRB approval usually is obtained
during award negotiations, not with proposal.
16
Funding and Deadlines
 Expect to fund, in all disciplines




130 Type 1 projects (~950 proposals)
45 Type 2 projects
4-6 Type 3 projects
1-3 Central Resource projects
 Proposal Deadlines
 Type 1: May 28-29, 2012
 Type 2 and 3, and CRP : January 13, 2012
 [Focused CRP workshops by agreement.]
17
Resources for Models
and Examples
 Disciplinary Education Journals (BAMBEd;
CBE: Life Sciences Education, etc.)
 CUR Quarterly
 Faculty Development Workshops
 NSF Award Search
 http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/
 Search by program, key word(s)
 Program web page on the NSF-DUE-TUES site
includes link to recent awards (abstracts)
18
Writing a Proposal: Getting Started
 Grant #0837640 to Allegheny College
 PI: Shaun Murphree
 Introduction of a Guided-inquiry Curriculum in
Organic Chemistry by means of Microwaveassisted Synthesis
 $149,704 for 36 months
19
Parts of the proposal
 Proposal number
 Cover page
 Table of contents
 Project description (15 page limit)
 References
 Biographical sketch (2 pages; desired content)
 Proposal budget (year by year and cumulative)
with budget justification
 Current and pending support
 Facilities, equipment, and other resources
20
Mock review: Think, share, report
Focus on the project description:
 Intellectual merit
 Broader impact
Other important features of TUES projects:
Intellectual merit:






Produce exemplary material, processes, models
Important findings related to student learning
Builds on existing knowledge about STEM education
Explicit outcomes expected and measurable
Useful evaluation plan
Appropriate plans for institutionalization
Broader impact:
Effort to facilitate adaptation at other kinds of institutions
with other kinds of students
Contribute to STEM education community
Broaden access of underrepresented groups
21
Formatting, Fastlane, and Grants.gov
 NSF proposal format requirements






15 single-spaced pages
Check fonts permitted
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact explicit in Project Summary
Data Management Plan
Post-doctoral Mentoring Plan
(RUI Impact Statement)
 Fastlane submission
 Web-based software – access from any browser
 Mature, well-supported system for NSF
 Accepts many file types, converts them to .pdf
 Grants.gov
 Government-wide system no longer available for NSF proposal
submission.
 Solicitation: NSF 10-544
22
What Happens to your Proposal?
 Submission of proposal via FastLane
 Proposals are reviewed by mail and/or panels of faculty within
the discipline(s) [Note: DUE primarily uses panels]
 A minimum of three persons outside NSF review each proposal
 For proposals reviewed by a panel, individual reviews and a
panel summary are prepared for each proposal
 NSF program staff member attends the panel discussion
 The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal’s review
considers the advice of reviewers and formulates a
recommendation
 Negotiations may be necessary to address reviewers’
comments, budget issues, and other concerns
23
What Happens to Your Proposal
(cont.)
 NSF strives to inform applicants whether their proposals
have been declined or recommended for funding within
six months.
 Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of
the reviewer, is provided to the PI.
 Proposals recommended for funding are forwarded to the
Division of Grants and Agreements for review.
 Only Grants and Agreements Officers may make awards.
 Notification of the award is made to the submitting
organization by a DGA Officer.
24
How to Really Learn about
Programs and Process
 Become a reviewer for the proposals submitted to
the program
 Give me a business card noting your interest and your
area of expertise on the back
 Send e-mail to the lead or disciplinary program officer
expressing interest. A CV is helpful.
 Your name will be added to the database of
potential reviewers
 We want to use many new reviewers each year,
especially for Type 1
25
Important Features of
Successful TUES Projects
 Quality,
Relevance, and Impact: Transform
 Student Focus
 Use of and Contribution to the STEM
Education Knowledge Base
 STEM Education Community-Building
 Expected Measurable Outcomes
 Project Evaluation
26
Quality, Relevance and Impact
 Innovative
 State-of-the-art products, processes, and
ideas
 Latest technology in laboratories and
classrooms
 Have broad implication for STEM education
 Even projects that involve a local implementation
 Advance knowledge and understanding
 Within the discipline
 Within STEM education in general
27
Student Focus
 Focus on student learning
 Project activities linked to STEM learning
 Consistent with the nature of today’s
students
 Reflect the students’ perspective
 Student input in design of the project
28
STEM Education
Knowledge Base
 Reflect high quality science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics
 Rationale and methods derived from the
existing STEM education knowledge base
 Effective approach for adding the results to
knowledge base
29
Community-Building
 Include interactions with
 Investigators working on similar or related
approaches in PI’s discipline and others
 Experts in evaluation, educational psychology
or other similar fields
 Benefit from the knowledge and
experience of others
 Engage experts in the development and
evaluation of the educational innovation
30
Expected Measurable
Outcomes
 Goals and objectives translated into
expected measurable outcomes
 Specific to the project
 Some expected measurable outcomes on
 Student learning
 Contributions to the knowledge base
 Community building
 Use to monitor progress, guide the project,
and evaluate its ultimate impact
31
Project Evaluation
 Include strategies for
 Monitoring the project as it evolves
 Evaluating the project’s effectiveness when
completed
 Based on the project-specific expected
measurable outcomes
 Appropriate for scope of the project
 Evaluator not one of the project team itself
Note: Plan to include the evaluator in the project design
32
Other programs in DUE
 Scholarship programs:
 Noyce (for preparing STEM majors for secondary
school teaching)
 S-STEM (to assist financially needy students to
complete STEM majors)
 Scholarship for Service (to encourage computer
science students interested in cybersecurity
 Programs to increase success of STEM majors:
 STEM Talent Expansion Program
 STEM Talent Expansion Program Centers
 Advanced Technology Education
 Programs managed with other NSF directorates:
 Research Cooperative Networks in Undergraduate
Biology Education
33