Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES)

1. ASBMB Special Symposium:Student Centered Education in the Molecular and Life Sciences IIUniversity of RichmondJuly 21, 2011 Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) An example of a program to improve undergraduate education Mary Lee Ledbetter Email: msledbet@nsf.gov Division of Undergraduate Education National Science Foundation

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 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

5. 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

6. Project Components Developing Faculty Expertise Implementing Educational Innovations Creating New Learning Materials and Teaching Strategies Research on Undergraduate STEM Teaching and Learning Assessing Learning and Evaluating Innovations TUES “Cycle of Innovation”

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. TUES - Assessing Learning and Evaluating Innovations • Design and test new assessment and evaluation tools and processes. • Applynew and existing tools to conduct broad-based assessments • Must span multiple projects and be of general interest

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 • 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 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.

17. 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.]

18. 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)

19. 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 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, 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

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