Making an Impact: Building Transportable and Sustainable Projects Webinar 4 of the

1. Making an Impact: Building Transportable and Sustainable Projects Webinar 4 of the Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Series Guy-Alain Amoussou & Maura Borrego gamousso@nsf.gov mborrego@nsf.gov November 8 & 9, 2011 Handout 1

2. Workshop presenters Maura Borrego rotator from Virginia Tech Engineering Guy-Alain Amoussou rotator from Humboldt State U Computer Science

3. Before you leave the Webinar! • Before you leave, please complete the assessment survey: http://www.nsflsu.com

4. Important Notes • Most of the information presented in this workshop represents the presenters’ opinions and not an official NSF position. • Local facilitators will provide the link to the workshop slides at the completion of the webinar. • Participants may ask questions by “raising their virtual hand” during a question session. We will call on selected sites and enable their microphone so that the question can be asked. • Responses will be collected from a few sites at the end of each Exercise. At the start of the Exercise, we will identify these sites in the Chat Box and then call on them one at a time to provide their responses.

5. Framework for the Session • Learning must build on prior knowledge • Some knowledge correct • Some knowledge incorrect – Misconceptions • Learning is • Connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge • Correcting misconceptions • Learning requires engagement • Actively recalling prior knowledge • Sharing new knowledge • Forming a new understanding

6. Preliminary CommentsActive & Collaborative Learning • Effective learning activities • Recall prior knowledge -- actively, explicitly • Connect new concepts to existing ones • Challenge and alter misconceptions • Active & collaborative processes • Think individually • Share with partner • Reportto local and virtual groups • Learn from program directors’ responses

7. Facilitator’s Duties • Coordinate the local activities • Watch the time • Allow for think, share, and report phases • Reconvene on time -- 1 min warning • With one minute warning, refer to Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response • Ensure the individual think phase is devoted to thinking quietly and not talking • Coordinate the asking of questions by local participants and reporting local responses to exercises

8. Goal for the Transportable and Sustainable Projects Session The session will enable you to design transportable and sustainable engineering and computer science education projects, based on an understanding of how faculty make decisions about their teaching.

9. Session Outcomes After the session, participants should be able to: • Discuss the importance of project transportability • Transfer or transmission model • Readiness Change model • Rational Faculty Model • Discuss key components of institutionalization at home institution • Structural and cultural considerations • Discuss types of transportability and sustainability approaches • Enabling, Encouraging, Facilitating, collaborating • Greater emphasis on designing for transportability than in the past

10. Activity Your Instructional Change Experience Reflect on a specific change you have made in your teaching that may have been funded by someone else’s CCLI or TUES project (e.g., active learning, concept inventory, online modules, or any other changes) • How did you first find out about it? • What convinced you to try it? • What aspects of the innovation (would have) made it easy to adopt? • What support from others (would have) made it easy to implement? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

11. PDs’ Response Your Instructional Change Experience • Usually you have a specific problem to solve (students don’t understand X) • You want to adapt or experiment with the change • It shouldn’t be too rigid or complicated • It should be compatible with your students, department, academic term, IT systems • You need different information at different times • Evidence of student learning • Advice on how to implement • Help processing “failures” Handout 2

12. Your Instructional Change Experience • Reflect on your own experience to understand your audience and design a plan to ensure others will use your “stuff” • What motivates you to change can • Inspire the need for a project • Inspire the project transportability and institutionalization • Also inspires others to use your “stuff”

13. Traditional Approach to STEM Educational Change • Develop and disseminate model • Transfer or transmission model • Developer (change agent) • Creates instructional materials and strategies • Significant effort • Research-based • Tries to convince other faculty to use them • Postings, presentations, publications (the 3 p’s) • Short, one-time workshops

14. Underlying Assumptions of Develop-then-Disseminate Model • Two negative manifestations impede success: • An “us vs. them” attitude • Myth # 1 -- Developers think faculty are unaware and unwilling to change • Myth # 2 -- Faculty think developers are dogmatic and judgmental • Neglect of important local factors Dancy and Henderson, NRC Workshop Report, 2008

15. Change Takes Time • Sequential change models • Pre-awareness – Willing to read a one-pager • Awareness – Willing to read longer summaries • Interest – Willing to read journal or conference publication • Search – Willing to attend a 2-4 hr workshop • Decision – Willing to attend a 1-2 day workshop • Action – Willing to implement • Trial period • Decision to continue or discard Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1995 Froyd, FIE, 2001

16. Change Takes Time • Faculty cannot be moved from Pre-awareness to Action with a single workshop • Change is not an event – it is a process Froyd, FIE, 2001

17. A Better Approach • Matched to how faculty members actually change • Dancy and Henderson’s Rational Faculty Model • Provide easily modifiable material • Users will customize • Provide research ideas with material • Users understand the rationale • If not, risk inappropriate adaptation, e.g., clickers for attendance • Make it clear what aspects will transfer under what conditions • Identify critical elements • Recommend modification for different situations Dancy and Henderson, NRC Workshop Report, 2008

18. Sustaining TUES Projects • Can’t transform undergraduate education if TUES projects are not sustained at the home institution after NSF funding ends • This process is called institutionalization “when an innovation or program is fully integrated into an organization’s structure” Curry, ASHE Report, 1992

19. Activity Barriers to Institutionalization What are some common reasons an education project fails to be institutionalized after NSF funding ends? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

20. PDs’ Response Barriers to Institutionalization • Enthusiasm wanes after grant ends • Money unavailable for personnel, supplies, etc. • PI moves on • Other teaching assignments • Administrative responsibilities • Moves to another institution • Multiple/new instructors less comfortable with format • Specially trained TAs graduate • Technology changes (equipment outdated, new computers/software) • Budget cuts reduce offerings of elective courses • Changes to curriculum impact student demand • Administrators unaware or not convinced of value

21. Institutionalization • Not just about money • Two aspects • Structural • policies, curriculum, teaching load/assignments • Cultural • becomes part of normal expectations of how we educate students (in topic X) • The most successful efforts address both structural and cultural

22. Activity Institutionalization For an idea you are considering for a TUES proposal, what institutionalization strategies can you pursue that address structural and cultural aspects? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

23. PDs’ Response Institutionalization • State learning outcomes and align to curricula and values • Collect and distribute convincing evaluation data • Publicize successes to deans, chairs, faculty and teaching assistants • Discuss at faculty and curriculum committee meetings • Adapt it to work for all students, faculty, departments (as appropriate) • Recruit other faculty to learn about it and use it in their classes • Provide data, advice and moral support • Work to secure resources as needed: lab space, staff support • Work to integrate it into curricula (as appropriate) Handout 3

24. Questions “Hold-up your virtual hand” and you will be called upon after we unmute your mike.

25. BREAK 15 min

26. BREAK 1 min warning

27. Need for Transportability • Most NSF education programs require project transportability • Example –Review criteria for TUES Program include: • Projects should produce exemplary materials, processes, or models that can be adopted by other sites • Projects should involve a significant effort aimed at facilitating adaptation at other sites • Projects should have the potential to contribute to a paradigm shift in undergraduate STEM education In this section we discuss how to address these criteria in a proposal or project

28. Transportability strategies As you work on your project (or develop your proposal) from the very beginning throughout the entire project think about: • Enabling others • Designing your “stuff” so that others can use it • Encouraging others • Make others aware of and interested in your “stuff” • Facilitating others • Help others use your “stuff” • Collaborating with others • Engage others in improving your “stuff”

29. Activity Enabling What should you think about when developing your “stuff” so that the final product can be used by others? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

30. PDs’ Response Enabling • Build in flexibility • Consider how the approach could be used: • In other curricular models, other courses, or other disciplines • With other teaching styles • State clearly the expected learning outcomes and link to needs • Minimize special equipment needs and implementation cost, consider virtual approaches • Collect convincing evaluation data • Summarize the approach’s rationale (the research-base, false starts, etc.) • Recruit a few faculty at other sites that teach the course (potential future users) and ask them periodically to consider • How well the approach fits their course and their style • How could it be made more compatible • What data would convince them Handout 4

31. Activity Encouraging How do you make others aware of and interested in your “stuff”? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

32. PDs’ Response Encouraging • Use a variety of strategies • Post, present, and publish it • Present workshops at PI’s institution or at national meetings • Post it on more widely accessed sites • Connexions site (cnx.org) • National Instruments (ni.com) • NSF’s NSDL (nsdl.org) • Others? • Use technology • Videos • Social media (YouTube, Face Book) • Provide a Information package (a “sales brochure”) • Statement of need and importance • Summary of approach • Evaluation data Handout 5

33. Activity Facilitating How do you help others use your “stuff”? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

34. PDs’ Response Facilitating • Continued support • Organize a support group (a community of practice) • Virtual workshops and support group • Wikis • Series of workshops • Share evaluation instruments and processes • Prepare a user’s guide • Pitfalls • Alternate approaches • Use “open source” approach Handout 6

35. Activity Collaborating How do you engage others in improving your “stuff”? • Exercise ---- 6 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Share with a partner ----- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 6 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group • With one minute warning, look at Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response

36. PDs’ Response Collaborating • Share control • Allow others to develop pieces of the material • Enable partners to contribute to the posted material • Develop a common evaluation process and data base • Develop group approaches for engaging and facilitating others • Include collaborators as Co-PIs, advisory board, etc. Handout 7

37. ActivityFinal Reflection • Does your proposal or your project have an effective dissemination plan? • How can you improve it? • Take ---- 4 min • Think individually -------- ~2 min • Report in local group ---- ~2 min • Watch time and reconvene after 4 min • Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group

38. References • Curry, B.K., (1992). Instituting Enduring Innovations: Achieving Continuity of Change in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7 • Dancy, M.H. and Henderson, J.C. (2008). Barriers and Promises in STEM Reform. Commissioned paper presented at NRC workshop on Evidence on Selected Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Dancy_Henderson_CommissionedPaper.pdf. • Froyd, J.E., “Developing a Dissemination Plan,” Proceedings, 2001 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. • Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations.

39. Questions Hold up your “virtual hand” to ask a question. Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/

40. Thanks for your participation! • To download a copy of the presentation- go to: http://www.nsflsu.com • Please complete the assessment survey-go to: http://www.nsflsu.com