1 ASBMB Special Symposium: ASBMB Special Symposium: Student Centered Education in the Student Centered Education in the Molecular and Life Sciences II Molecular and Life Sciences II University of Richmond University of Richmond July 21, 2011 July 21, 2011 Transforming Undergraduate Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) Education in STEM (TUES) An example of a program to improve An example of a program to improve undergraduate education undergraduate education Mary Lee Ledbetter Email: [email protected]Division of Undergraduate Education National Science Foundation
33
Embed
1 ASBMB Special Symposium: Student Centered Education in the Molecular and Life Sciences II University of Richmond July 21, 2011 Transforming Undergraduate.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
ASBMB Special Symposium:ASBMB Special Symposium:Student Centered Education in the Student Centered Education in the
Molecular and Life Sciences IIMolecular and Life Sciences IIUniversity of RichmondUniversity of Richmond
July 21, 2011July 21, 2011
Transforming Undergraduate Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES)Education in STEM (TUES)
An example of a program to improve An example of a program to improve undergraduate educationundergraduate education
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
3
Transforming Undergraduate Education in Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (TUESMathematics (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
4
TUES: Three Scales of TUES: Three Scales of ProjectsProjects
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 smaller-scale 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
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
10
TUES - Assessing Learning and TUES - Assessing Learning and Evaluating InnovationsEvaluating 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
11
TUES - Conducting Research on TUES - Conducting Research on STEM Teaching and LearningSTEM 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
12
Lessons From Prior Rounds Lessons From Prior Rounds of the Program 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.
13
Examples of Phase (Type) 1 Examples of Phase (Type) 1 CCLI Projects 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.
14
What was new for 2010 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.
15
What is new for 2011 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)
16
Human Subjects and the IRBHuman Subjects and the IRB(Institutional Review Board)(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.
17
Funding and DeadlinesFunding 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.]
18
Resources for Models Resources for Models and Examplesand 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)
19
Writing a Proposal: Getting Writing a Proposal: Getting StartedStarted
Grant #0837640 to Allegheny College
PI: Shaun Murphree
Introduction of a Guided-inquiry Curriculum in Organic Chemistry by means of Microwave-assisted Synthesis
$149,704 for 36 months
20
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
21
Mock review: Think, share, reportFocus on the project description:
Intellectual merit Broader impactOther 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 studentsContribute to STEM education communityBroaden access of underrepresented groups
22
Formatting, Fastlane, and Formatting, Fastlane, and Grants.govGrants.gov
NSF proposal format requirementsNSF proposal format requirements 15 single-spaced pages15 single-spaced pages Check fonts permittedCheck fonts permitted Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact explicit in Project Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact explicit in Project
SummarySummary Data Management PlanData Management Plan Post-doctoral Mentoring PlanPost-doctoral Mentoring Plan (RUI Impact Statement)(RUI Impact Statement)
Fastlane submissionFastlane submission Web-based software – access from any browserWeb-based software – access from any browser Mature, well-supported system for NSFMature, well-supported system for NSF Accepts many file types, converts them to .pdfAccepts many file types, converts them to .pdf
Grants.govGrants.gov Government-wide system no longer available for NSF Government-wide system no longer available for NSF
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
32
Project EvaluationProject 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
itselfNote: Plan to include the evaluator in the project
design
33
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