PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS 2016 CALL … · 2016-03-05 · PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS 2016 CALL FOR ... Each module will be comprised of a technique for

2016 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants

1

PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS

2016 CALL FOR PROPOSALS

The Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants (PLIG) program was developed to broaden and enrich the learning experience of RIT students by funding faculty-initiated projects that enhance student learning. More than 200 RIT faculty projects have received funding since the program was initiated in AY 2000-2001. (Examples of previously funded projects are available at the PLIG website, rit.edu/ili/plig). The launch of the Innovative Learning Institute (ILI) in 2012, and its charge to assist in the creation of exceptional learning experiences for students, led to an evaluation of PLIG and a revitalization of the program to:

• Better support dissemination of individual faculty learning to the wider faculty population • Provide funding for the implementation of successful pilot projects • Integrate funding with Institute priorities • Support the scholarship of teaching and learning

The 2016 Application Form is found on page 3 of this document.

I. ELIGIBILITY The principal applicant(s) must be tenured or tenure-track RIT faculty. PLIG 2016 projects can include visiting assistant professors, lecturers, adjunct faculty, staff, students, and other contributors.

II. PLIG TYPES There are two types of grants—Exploration and Focus Grants—for PLIG 2016. Full details are available at rit.edu/ili/plig.

III. USE OF GRANT FUNDS Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants for 2016 may range from $1,000-$5,000.

Examples of the use of PLIG funds include: • Course release (reasonable, actual replacement costs for full-time, tenure-track or tenured faculty

members removed from teaching)


2

• Development of new technology-based learning tools and/or environments

• Technologies or equipment required by the project that are not normally provided by the department/college

• Resources for research design and consultation, data collection and aggregation, instrument development and/or purchase, secure data storage, data analysis, and report generation

• Travel to support research activity and/or meet with potential funding sources

IV. PLIG TIMELINE The grant timeline assumes that most recipients will use Summer 2016 to plan and develop their PLIG funded project for delivery or implementation during the Fall 2016 and/or Spring 2017 semester(s). The full timeline is at rit.edu/ili/plig.

V. SELECTION COMMITTEE AND EVALUTION CRITERIA Applications for PLIG funds are evaluated by the PLIG selection committee according to the following criteria:

• Utility (solves a defined problem, has potential to benefit many courses/faculty)

• Creativity (is a novel approach or application, represents a new paradigm)

• Efficacy (uses an evidence-based approach, impact to student learning and/or the student experience can be demonstrated)

Details on proposal evaluation and selection committee membership is on the website (rit.edu/ili/plig).

VI. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS Please email [email protected] with any questions or comments.


3

PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS

2016 APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Complete this form in its entirety and email it to [email protected] no later than January 27, 2016. Please note to save and rename this document substituting your name (in place of “NAME”) in the file name.

Ask your Department Head to complete the Department Head Certification and return the signed copy along with your application. Note: the signed copy may be scanned and emailed.

If you have any questions about completing this application, please email them to [email protected] or call Michael Starenko at 585-475-5035.

APPLICANT INFORMATION This application is for a:

FOCUS GRANT

EXPLORATION GRANT

Principal Applicant Name: Kirsten Condry _____________________________ Email: [email protected]

Faculty Title:Associate professor ____________________________________ Phone: 475-4556 (Full-time, tenured and tenure track only)

College: College of Liberal Arts __________________ Department: Psychology

Department Head name: Andrew Herbert Email: [email protected] ____

Proposed Project itle: Developing accessible and assessable techniques for teaching research methods ____ Total funds requested (requests of $1,000 to $5,000 will be considered): $2,920.00_____________ Others involved in the project (if any): Dr. Tina Sutton (Assistant Professor, Psychology), Dr. Stephanie Godleski (Assistant Professor, Psychology), Dr. Eleanor Chand-Matzke (Lecturer, Psychology)____________________________

____________________________


4

BUDGET

There is a fillable PDF worksheet to calculate your budget. You can download the worksheet at rit.edu/plig.

• The total shown on this worksheet must match the “Total funds requested” in the Applicant Information section of this application form

• If awarded, additional funds will be provided to cover any benefits and ITS expenses associated with the salary budget requested

• Note that any equipment or other materials purchased with grant funds are the property of your department and revert to the department after your project is completed

TIMELINE Please indicate any variances to the planned PLIG 2016 schedule and your reasons. If you do not intend to deviate from the schedule, you may leave this section blank.

Task Date Proposed variance and reason

Full project plan submitted Aug. 24, 2016

Preliminary findings submitted Jan. 25, 2017

Summary of final findings submitted Aug. 23, 2017

Final budget accounting submitted Aug. 23, 2017

Faculty Teaching and Learning Commons posting (a summary of findings, examples of teaching designs or materials, etc.) due

On or before Oct. 24, 2017

Participation in Teaching and Learning Services PLIG dissemination event

On or before Nov. 17, 2017


5

STATEMENT OF UTILITY (two pages maximum) Using the proposal evaluation criteria outlined in the Evaluation section of the website (rit.edu/ili/plig), please provide an overview of the project you are proposing, including: • Project objectives

• An explanation of the teaching/learning problem(s) it is designed to address

• An explanation of the significance of the project to student outcomes and/or the student experience.

• A brief description of how the project integrates with activity already underway at RIT in the priority area and/or how this approach has been successfully used at RIT already.

The problem we address, in support of Focus Area 2, is using the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to develop accessible, effective techniques for teaching research methods to undergraduate students that can be flexibly adapted and assessed. We will base our approaches on the newest techniques in development at RIT and from the literature on the science of teaching and learning. The specific objective of this project to develop modules for teaching scientific writing and statistical literacy that focus on providing diverse opportunities for student engagement and expression, and we will prioritize making every technique accessible to people with differing communication styles. Our additional goals are to develop techniques with maximum usability and assess-ability: Each module will come with assessments and grading rubrics, will be easily transferrable to other disciplines, and will be presented along with data on its appeal and efficacy.

Our goal in teaching at RIT is to provide students with opportunities to master the ‘problem of college’ –not only to learn from textbooks and experts in the field, but to diversify that knowledge and to develop skills that will be flexible after college - so they achieve success in the real world of unsolved problems and untested approaches. To this end, the Psychology program requires that students spend two semesters engaged in research methods, learning to write clearly, think critically, and interpret statistics well. The problem we address in this grant is that these courses are often challenging because students begin the sequence with only novice's view of the science, and an opaque understanding of the importance of careful statistical testing and clear writing.

The UDL approach provides an excellent framework for structuring a successful classroom experience (see Rose & Gravel, 2010; Smith, 2012). The UDL focus on providing a range of opportunities for experiencing information, for expressing knowledge, and for maintaining motivation aligns perfectly with our goal of developing course components that support all students across the range of diverse learning backgrounds and communication styles. In the Psychology program (where 20% of our students identify as Deaf or Hard of hearing), the research methods sequence is required as a foundation for the advanced level of the program, but for some students it presents a stumbling block because of their poor writing preparation and limited math experience. The siginificance of this project is that if students are engaged with the critical tasks of writing and statistics in a way that supports their learning styles, keeps them motivated and persistent in the face of challenges, and successfully improves their skills, students will develop a solid foundation for later expertise and success beyond college.

As a starting point, we will begin with techniques that have been developed and are supported at RIT, including materials from NTID’s DeafTEC and ClassAct sites (deaftec.org/), and approaches developed in collaboration with the University Writing Program (rit.edu/academicaffairs/writing/) and Teaching and Learning Services at the Innovative Learning Institute (rit.edu/academicaffairs/tls/). Each module will be comprised of a technique for teaching a component of writing or statistics, and across the group of modules we will provide multiple, flexible means of gaining and expressing knowledge, as well as a variety of approaches to address persistence, motivation, and metacognition based on the UDL rubric developed by Smith (2012). Some techniques we have piloted already, including a new idea (introduced by NTID’s Dr. Mike Stinson at a TLS event in 2015) about using white boards to facilitate in-class discussions among mixed communication groups. We have also pre-tested the use of diverse writing opportunities, like the 1-minute paper and “muddiest point” response cards (see rit.edu/academicaffairs/tls). These techniques support UDL Principles I and II in providing flexible means of


6

representation and expression, and anecdotally they were met with preliminary success, but they need to be formally assessed in terms of their value and utility.

Other techniques we will employ have emerged from the literature on teaching and learning, and dovetail with the UDL approach. For example, statistics modules will use low-stakes quizzing to enhance reasoning, based on research comparing how different kinds of knowledge retrieval improve learning (e.g., Karpicke & Blunt, 2011; Khanna, 2014). Another technique from the literature (one we have piloted; Ambrose et al., 2007) is the use of “midterm exam wrappers” that engage students in exam reflection to build metacognitive awareness of their knowledge and study skills. These approaches support UDL Principle III of providing multiple means of engagement and promoting metacognition. While many of these techniques have some data to support their effectiveness, they have not been adapted to different communication styles, tested extensively across student populations, or assessed carefully. Our goal is to test, modify and improve these techniques to be fully useful at RIT and beyond, extending their use to new disciplines and adapting them to be accessible to everyone.

Our group is composed of four faculty who have been teaching the Psychology research methods courses over the past ten years. We already meet regularly to discuss issues related to teaching, develop ‘best practices,’ and mentor each other, and we share our knowledge: we have produced an online database for posting group experiment materials and ideas to benefit all Psychology faculty. We are deeply committed to improving our teaching, regularly attending TLS/ILI events, and networking with other faculty on campus. We seek this grant to expand our knowledge and collect data on our innovative techniques. Although we all have expertise in the study of cognitive and social psychology, we are new to the science of teaching and learning. To support our transition to this new area, we request funds to buy teaching materials, to gain access to online databases of materials and data-sets, and to attend the Teaching of Psychology preconference at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Science conference, including a workshop on classroom data collection techniques. This conference is highly regarded and would be our target for the external dissemination of our results next year.

Challenges in teaching scientific thinking and reasoning face all sciences, and the importance of writing has been recognized as central to college success. In Psychology these areas are essential to our student learning outcomes (and comprise 8 of the 10 goals for undergraduate Psychology majors proposed by the American Psychological Association). The purpose of our proposal is to not only advance our Psychology research methods courses but also develop and provide data on UDL-driven teaching techniques that have been initiated at RIT – with a top priority of supporting diverse communication styles and improving knowledge and learning. Our plan aligns with RIT’s mission and our data will contribute to the institute’s leadership role in developing high quality, research-based, assessment-ready methods for teaching that prioritize accessibility and student success.

References:

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Wiley.

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772-775.

Khanna, M. M. (October, 2014). Cumulative final exams and pop quizzes: Practical ways to integrate repeated testing into courses. Paper presented at the annual conference for the Society for Teaching of Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/page-1718256

Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It's ok — Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 731-737.

Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.McGraw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, pp. 119–124. Oxford: Elsevier. Retrieved from www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/

Smith, F. G. (2012). Analyzing a college course that adheres to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12, 31-61


7


8

STATEMENT OF CREATIVITY (three paragraphs maximum) Provide a brief description of how this is a novel approach, or a new application of an existing mode or model of teaching and learning, and/or research about how teaching and learning represents an entirely new paradigm. (Please note that special consideration will be given to proposals that demonstrate a new use/application of a model, system, or technology already in use at RIT.)

We propose to build on techniques that have been developed at RIT or published in the literature on teaching and learning, while prioritizing accessibility. The innovation in our plan is to develop techniques that support diverse communication styles as we use the UDL framework to curate and test successful approaches to teaching. RIT provides a tremendous learning experience for citizens on campus to learn about and support diversity of communication. In this way, RIT provides its students with an unusual advantage, because we produce graduates who are uniquely suited to overcoming barriers in communication in their future global economy. Our students learn to collaborate and work in groups with peers and mentors who share knowledge but not a common language, and we propose to build on this unique advantage in developing our teaching modules guided by the UDL approach. For example, our use of white boards to facilitate in-class discussions among mixed communication groups aligns with Principle I (providing multiple means of representation), and Checkpoints 1.2 (offering alternatives for auditory information) and 2.4 (promoting understanding across languages). The UDL emphasis on providing flexible opportunities for learning and expression dovetails with our focus, but with the difference that we will adapt techniques so they are not limited to all-hearing or shared-communication groups.

The UDL approach also informs another level of our plan, because improving accessibility and ease of interaction among students promotes a positive and inclusive learning environment, which should enhance students’ effort, persistence and self-regulation in their coursework. Some of our techniques in writing and statistics will focus on metacognition, or the ability to self-assess and adapt according to feedback (e.g., the midterm exam wrapper; Ambrose et al., 2007), while other techniques will emphasize naïve knowledge and how to correct misconceptions and build bridges to new knowledge (e.g., Huck, 2009). The metacognition and motivation components of our plan is consistent with Principle II (providing multiple means of action and expression; Smith, 2012) and Principle III (providing multiple means of engagement), as well as Checkpoints 6.4 (enhancing capacity for monitoring progress) and Checkpoint 9.3 (developing self-assessment and reflection). Our goal is to provide students with a learning environment that supports their means of communication, their current knowledge, and provides them with both impetus and opportunity for learning about themselves.

Designing classes using the UDL framework will provide our students the opportunity to increase their knowledge and competence in research methods, increase their engagement in the classroom, improve their ability to understand their strengths and weaknesses through self-assessment, and improve educational outcomes. Utilizing and testing this framework in the Research Methods courses will also benefit the faculty who teach these and other courses. The approaches and assessments will make us better able to monitor and address learner variability within the classroom, improve student interest in engagement both inside and outside of the classroom, and provide a basis for redesigning other classes in the future.

References:


Huck, S. W. (2009). Statistical misconceptions. New York: Routledge



9

STATEMENT OF EFFICACY (two pages maximum) Provide a brief description of the experiment/research design, methodology, and methods of data collection you will use to gauge efficacy.

The techniques we propose to adapt have been developed and sometimes assessed in terms of their appeal to students, but many approaches have not been made accessible to mixed-communication groups, nor been formally assessed in terms of their efficacy for learning. For this reason, we plan to take a multi-level approach to assessment to measure general advances in the areas we target, the specific techniques we employ, perception of the UDL approach, and whether the overall approach influences metacognition and motivation.

First, the central goal of devising better teaching methods is to improve learning. We will measure improvement in our target areas of statistical reasoning and scientific writing with the use of pre- and post-tests for all students. For example, we will measure gains in statistical literacy by developing two tests comprised of matched questions. At the beginning of the semester, half the students will take one version of the test while the remaining students will take the other version. All students will take the other version of test at the end of the term, giving us a measure of individual change and a control for items across test versions. We have the advantage of being able to base our test design on the results of our previous course exams (from our long experience teaching these courses), and link them to the current expectations for statistical knowledge in the field (e.g., Society for the Teaching of Psychology 2012 Report of the Statistical Literacy Task Force). This approach will allow us to track improvement in areas that can be matched to the specific modules we develop and give us insight into the value of the enhancements on student learning. We will also link the post-test results in these target areas to the remaining assessments.

Second, each individual module will be assessed in terms of its engagement for students, based on simple surveys. It is standard to measure the experienced value of a new teaching tool and the qualitative student feedback is useful for adjusting the technique. However, we also plan to use student ratings of techniques in a more complex analysis. Research has shown that engagement in a technique is often a predictor of its effectiveness for an individual, and data on the UDL approach suggests that students who perceive the techniques as valuable also show increased interest in the course (Smith, 2012). These ratings will allow us to test, for example, whether students who give feedback that the midterm exam wrapper was very useful also show greater gains on the final exam relative to students who rated the technique as not useful. Measuring student perceptions of the techniques we develop can yield insight into individual differences in effectiveness.

Third, to measure the effectiveness of the UDL approach in supporting student motivation, we propose an innovative measure that will track students’ academic attribution styles over the course. The UDL emphasis on metacognitive awareness is based on the idea that students will extend more effort and approach tasks with more engagement if there is a shared expectation that coursework is valuable, interesting, and professionally meaningful. Research has shown that simple techniques we will incorporate, like explaining the purpose and goals of the task, or having clear expectations, can have a positive impact on students’ orientation toward learning (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2007; Rattan et al., 2012). The UDL approach is designed to improve students’ motivation in part by influencing their attributions of intelligence, or the extent to which they believe that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable (entity theory) versus malleable and improvable (incremental theory). Research by Dweck and colleagues has repeatedly shown that students with a more incremental theory show more persistence, particularly after challenges, than students who subscribe to an entity theory, and that students' attributions can change with intervention (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007). We propose to measure students’ attribution styles at the beginning and end of the semester to look for changes that might emerge from experiencing the UDL approach. Our analysis will include looking for correlations between changes in attribution style and the individual feedback (from each student) abou their perception of the technique.

Finally, we plan to extend the data on the UDL approach by measuring it directly: we will ask students to rate the overall course in its UDL components based on the survey developed by Smith to assess student perception of UDL techniques and motivation for learning (see Smith, 2012, Appendix A). This will yield insight into whether the techniques we use are comparable to those promoted in the literature, and more importantly, we can extend Smith’s (2012) finding that individual differences in UDL perception are correlated with differences in motivation


10

by asking whether students who perceive more UDL components in the course also show changes in their incremental theory of intelligence over the course.

We consider assessment of efficacy of teaching techniques to be critical in pedagogical development, which is why we propose to go beyond the typical ‘do students like it’ measure of teaching innovations. We are well positioned to collect these data, with a diverse group of faculty committed to teaching these courses, and extensive experience with data collection and analysis, including deep expertise in the cognitive psychology research that forms the basis of the UDL approach. Recently, the science of teaching and learning literature has become oriented toward improving meaningful assessment, and we propose several novel approaches to measuring the UDL approach that will yield insight into the mechanisms and efficacy of these techniques.

References:


Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263. doi: 0009-3920/2007/7801-0014

Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It's ok — Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 731-737.



11

DISSEMINATION PLAN (optional) Provide details about the journal, conference, show, or other external vehicle with strong potential for dissemination of your results. Include supporting documentation, such as preliminary interest or acceptance, with your application, if available. (Please note that special consideration will be given to proposals that have a defined opportunity for external dissemination, such as an academic journal or professional conference.)

ILI will arrange channels for disseminating results within RIT.

Our dissemination plan includes presentation at a national teaching conference, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and sharing materials, data and results with our colleagues in Psychology and across RIT.

As preparation for our dissemination plan, we have requested funding to attend the 23rd annual Teaching Institute sponsored by the Association for Psychological Science (APS) and the Society for the Teaching of Psychology (STP; see budget rationale). Attending this conference will be highly beneficial by allowing us to network with other scholars and attend a workshop that is especially integral to our project goals (Designing your classroom research: A hands-on guide to SoTL). This workshop will ensure that we take an approach that is relevant and endorsed by top scholars in the field, which will be extremely useful preparation for submitting our research for presentation at next year’s APS-STP Teaching Institute. Submissions for the 24th Teaching Institute are due in January, 2017 and the conference takes place in May, 2017, which fits well with our timeline for data collection. Teaching Institute topics from recent years have included many relevant to our project, including best practices for teaching statistics, APA's goals for undergraduates, and supporting classroom diversity. We plan to collect data on a range of issues including changes in student attributions of intelligence, broad improvements in statistical literacy and scientific writing, and perceptions and efficacy of the UDL approach, all of which should appeal to scholars in this area.

In addition, we plan to submit our findings to journals on the scholarship of teaching and learning. Given the extensive nature of the assessment we have planned, we may produce more than one manuscript. For example, the measures of UDL efficacy and theories of intelligence would be of interest to general scholars of the UDL approach or cognitive science (because interventions at the college level are rare), and could be submitted to the Journal of Scholarship for Teaching and Learning or APS (the journal of the Association for Psychological Science). The modules we create, and data on their efficacy and perception by students, would be suited for publication in a journal like The Teaching of Psychology, which publishes articles on enhancing student learning in the field. Because the teaching of research methods in Psychology has become a critical area of focus in recent years, there is considerable interest in studies that focus on methods topics (for example, Barron and Apple (2014) debate the best ways to structure and sequence Methods and Statistics courses within the curriculum of courses). Our results will speak to many issues like this that have emerged in from recent research, but we will propose an advance in offering a well-rounded and data-driven approach using specific and accessible techniques.

We also plan to continue sharing our knowledge and techniques with our colleagues in Psychology and across campus. We have already created a database for sharing group experiment materials, and we will continue to populate that database with ideas and materials for improving pedagogy. The materials we produce will be highly relevant to other teachers of Psychology research methods, which is important because need is increasing as the the new interdisciplinary Human-Centered Computing major rapidly attracts students. Also our techniques will be easily adaptable to other courses that teach writing, critical thinking, and statistics. Our department is deeply committed to sharing knowledge about pedagogy, and through our research we will actively contribute to the development and dissemination of best practices among our colleagues in the department and across campus.

References:

Barron, K. E., & Apple, K. J. (2014). Debating curricular strategies for teaching statistics and research methods: What does the current evidence suggest? Teaching of Psychology, 41, 187-194. doi:10.1177/0098628314537967


12


13

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Please address these questions, if needed.

Will your project require assistance for extensive or unusual media, multimedia, simulation, and/or software development? If so, please explain?

All courses offered by RIT must be accessible to students with disabilities, according to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (rit.edu/studentaffairs/disabilityservices/info). Is your proposed teaching approach accessible to all students, with reasonable accommodation? If not, please explain.

RIT abides by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which prohibits instructors from making students' identities, course work, and educational records public without their consent (rit.edu/xVzNE). Will any data gathering or sharing for your project raise any FERPA issues? If so, please explain.

No.

Yes.

No.


14

DISSEMINATION AGREEMENT By completing this grant application, I agree to provide the materials described here, in support of disseminating what is learned from this project to other faculty at RIT.

I also agree to return all/a portion of the funds that I receive for this project to RIT if I fail to complete or provide the materials described here. • Full project plan (including roles and responsibilities, milestone dates, and pertinent project details) • Overview of preliminary findings (may include experiment/study design, lessons learned, initial data

collection, and/or literature review summary)

• Final project summary (including data collection, lessons learned, implications for further study, and which may be in the form of an article abstract, conference presentation outline, or short report)

• Teaching and Learning Commons posting (a summary of findings and examples of teaching designs or materials)

• Participation in a faculty dissemination event • Final budget accounting (reconciliation of budget provided with your application and the actual project

expenses)

By submitting this application, I accept this agreement. kfc (Applicants initials)


15

DEPARTMENT HEAD CERTIFICATION I support this PLIG application and budget, and verify that the principal applicant _________________________ is a full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty member in good standing in my department.

Department Head Name (PRINT): _______________________________________ Email: ____________________

Department Head Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________

PLIG Budget WorksheetApplicant's Name:

Personnel Purpose/Justification AmountFull-Time Faculty/Staff

123

Adjuncts, Part-Time Faculty/Staff, Summer Salary123

Student Workers, Graduate Assistants123

T Personnel Total

Equipment Purpose/Justification Amount123

T Equipment Total

Travel Purpose/Justification Amount123

T Travel Total

Other (Specify) Purpose/Justification Amount123456

T Other Expenses Total

Total Award Request

PLIG Condry, Sutton, Godleski and Chand-Matzke Budget rationale: This project will involve significant time commitment from the four faculty involved, and we request funds in three main areas: personnel support for data entry, materials for teaching innovations, and access to a conference and scholarship relevant to our project.

1) Personnel: A student research assistant is requested for 100 hours of work (at $10/hr.). Because our plan involves a great deal of test preparation, data collection, and assessments to be performed throughout the semester, we request funding for a research assistant. The RA will complete primarily data entry, including entering pre- and post-tests into online survey tools for students to access anonymously and tabulating data collected from classroom research. (Note: all data will be de-identified before tabulation, to prevent confidentiality issues, and will be analyzed by faculty).

2) Equipment: Most of the techniques we will develop are low-cost and based on literature

available through the RIT library. We request a small amount of funding to buy materials for testing two novel approaches to group discussion among students who do not share communication styles. We request funds to buy small and large white boards and pens, as well as large graph pads, to facilitate and test group discussion techniques ($500).

3) Travel: We request funds to attend the Teaching Institute pre-conference of the

Association for Psychological Science (May, 2016, Chicago, IL), co-sponsored by the Society for the Teaching of Psychology, and for a workshop on designing SoTL research (Designing Your Classroom Research: A Hands-On Guide to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning). All faculty propose to use their entire department and college travel funding to pay for flight, airfare and meals, so we request only the registration fees for two APS members ($235 each) and two non-members ($350 each), and attendance at the SoTL workshop ($60 each). While our group of faculty are experts in cognitive and social development, and have been immersed in the literature on teaching and learning, we have not yet networked with scholars beyond those at RIT. Attending this conference and the workshop will allow us to consult with experts and get direct feedback on our plans before we begin data collection, and confirm that our approach is aligned with current best practice in the field, in preparation for submitting our research to this conference next year.

4) Other: We request funds for 2 years’ membership in the Society for the Teaching of

Psychology (STP), which is Division 2 of the American Psychological Association. Membership costs are low ($25 per person/year) and members gain access to an online database of materials, techniques and data on the science of teaching and learning in Psychology (as well as the journal, Teaching of Psychology, a target for dissemination of our project). Membership for the full period of this project (2 years) will allow us to utilize the database, materials and networking capacity during both the preparation stage and the crucial data analysis and dissemination stage of our research.

PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS 2016 CALL … · 2016-03-05 · PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS 2016 CALL FOR ... Each module will be comprised of a technique for

Documents