Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network
National Science Foundation (NSF) Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)
Workshop on Assessment and Evaluation of STEM Instructional Practices
at TCUP-supported Institutions

October 30-31, 2015  

Hilton Baltimore BWI Airport • 1739 West Nursery Road • Linthicum Heights, MD



NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) – [NSF 16-1]

About the NSF TCUP Program

- TCUP Program Solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14572/nsf14572.pdf

- Report: NSF's Tribal Colleges and Universities Program: Nations United in Improving Science and Technology Education for Native Americans [NSF02072]. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02072/nsf02072.pdf

American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) Indigenous Evaluation Framework

Carnevale, Anthony, Nicole Smith, and Michelle Melton. 2011. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
     Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Frechtling, Joy, Melvin Mark, Debra, Rog, Veronica Thomas, Henry Frierson, Stafford Hood,
     and Gerunda Hughes. 2010. The 2010 User-friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Thomasian, John. 2011. Building a Science,
     Technology, Engineering, and Math Education Agenda: An Update of State Actions. Washington, DC.

Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network. Effective Institutional STEM Instructional Strategies at HBCU-UP
     Grantee Institutions Report. December 2012.

Southern Regional Education Board. Instructional Strategies: How Teachers Teach Matters.

The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21). Framework for 21st Century Learning.
     - P21 Framework:       http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_framework_0515.pdf
     - P21 Framework Definitions http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf


American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Foundation.
     2009. New Challenges, New Strategies: Building Excellence in Undergraduate STEM Education. Washington DC.

Austin, Ann. 2011. Promoting Evidence-based Change in Undergraduate Science Education.
     Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Austin_March_Paper.pdf

Cullinane, Jenna and Lacey Leegwater. 2009. Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: The Model
     Replication Institutions Program. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.  

Fairweather, James. n.d. Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
     Undergraduate Education: A Status Report for the National Academies National Research Council Board of
     Science Education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Labov, Jay, Susan Singer, Melvin George, Heidi Schweingruber, and Margaret Hilton. 2009.
     Effective Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Part 1: Examining the Evidence. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8, 157-161.

National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 2012. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in
     Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  


Arum, Richard, Josipa Roksa, and Esther Cho. n.d. Improving Undergraduate Learning:
     Findings and Policy Recommendations from the Social Science Research Council-Collegiate Learning Assessment
     Longitudinal Project. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.  

Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. 2003. Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence:
     A User-friendly Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.

Dodge, Judith. n.d. “What are Formative Assessments and Why Should We Use Them?: Tips for
     Using Formative Assessments to Help You Differentiate Instruction and Improve Student Achievement.” Scholastic, Inc. website.

Henderson, Charles and Melissa Dancy. 2011. “Increasing the Impact and Diffusion of STEM Education Innovations.”
     Presented at the Characterizing the Impact of Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations Forum,
     February 7-8, in New Orleans, LA.

Mathematical Association of America. MathNotes #49. 2005 Revision. Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics.
     Washington, DC. http://www.maa.org/press/ebooks/assessment-practices-in-undergraduate-mathematics

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. 2007. Student Learning Assessment- Options
     and Resources. Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

Stanovich, Paula and Keith Stanovich. 2003. Using Research and Reason in Education: How
     Teachers Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular and Instructional Decisions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC
     Research Corporation. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED482973


A. Active Learning

Armbruster, Peter, Maya Patel, and Erika Johnson. 2009. Active Learning and Student-centered
     Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213.

Michael, Joel. 2006. Where’s the Evidence that Active Learning Works? Advanced
     Physiological Education, 30, 159-167. http://advan.physiology.org/content/30/4/159.full.pdf+html

B. Blended Learning

Blackboard, Inc. 2009. Blended Learning: Where Online and Face-to-Face Instruction Intersect
     for 21st Century Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: Blackboard, Inc.

Dziuban, Charles, Joel Hartman, and Patsy Moskal. 2004. Blended Learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

Pecorino, Philip. n.d. “Pedagogy for Blended Instruction: A Primer.”

Sahin, Mehmet. 2010. Blended Learning in Vocational Education: An Experimental Study.
     International Journal of Vocational Education, 2(6), 95-101.

C. Incorporating Technology into Teaching

Glenn, Marie and Debra D’Agostino. 2008. The Future of Higher Education: How Technology
     Will Shape Learning. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.

McDaniel, Carl, Bradford Lister, Michael Hanna, and Harry Roy. 2007. Increased Learning Observed in Redesigned Introductory
     Biology Course that Employed Web-enhanced, Interactive Pedagogy. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 243-239.

Miller, Ben. 2010. The Course of Innovation: Using Technology to Transform Higher Education.
     Washington, DC: Education Sector.

Noeth, Richard and Boris Volkov. 2004. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Technology in Our
     Schools: ACT Policy Report. Iowa City, IA: ACT.

Williams, David. 2002. Improving Use of Learning Technologies in Higher Education through
     Participant Oriented Evaluations. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3).

D. Inquiry-based Learning

Brickman, Peggy, Cara Gormally, Norris Armstrong, and Brittan Hallar. 2009. Effects of Inquiry-based Literacy Skills and
     Confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching Learning, 3(2).

Wood, William. 2003. Inquiry-based Undergraduate Teaching in the Life Science at Large
     Research Universities: A Perspective on the Boyer Commission. Cell Biology Education, 2, 112-116.

E. Problem-based Learning

Colliver, Jerry. 2000. Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning Curricula: Research and Theory.
     Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10724315

Gallow, De. n.d. “What is Problem-based Learning?” Problem-based Learning Faculty Institute
     website at the University of California, Irvine. http://www.pbl.uci.edu/whatispbl.html

Savery, John. 2006. Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions.
     Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol1/iss1/3/

F. Process-oriented Guided Inquiry Learning

Hanson, David. 2005. “Designing Process-oriented Guided-inquiry Activities.” In Faculty
     Guidebook: A Comprehensive Tool for Improving Faculty Performance. Second Edition, eds.
     D.K. Apple and S.W. Beyerlein. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.

Moog, Rick, James Spencer, Frank Creegan, Troy Wolfskill, David Hanson, Andrei Stroumanis,
     Diane Bunce, Jennifer Lewis, et al. n.d. “Process-oriented Guided-inquiry Learning.” Science Education Resource Center
     Pedagogy in Action web portal. http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/pogil/index.html

G. Project-based Learning

Larmer, John and John Mergendoller. 2010. Seven Essentials for Project-based Learning. Giving
     Students Meaningful Work, 1, 34-37. ASCD website.

National Academy Foundation. n.d. Project-based Learning: A Resource for Instructors and
     Program Coordinators
. New York, NY: National Academy Foundation. http://naf.org/files/PBL_Guide.pdf

H. Supplemental Instruction/Peer-led Instruction

Arendale, David. 2002. History of Supplemental Instruction (SI): Mainstreaming of
     Developmental Education. http://a.web.umkc.edu/arendaled/SIhistory02.pdf

Crouch, Catherine and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and
     Results. American Journal of Physics Teachers, 60(9), 970-977. http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/Crouch_Mazur.pdf

Duranczyk, Irene, Jeanne Higbee, and Dana Lundell. 2004. Best Practices for Access and
     Retention in Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
     Literacy at the University of Minnesota. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/CRDEUL/pdf/monograph/5-a.pdf#page=37

Horwitz, Susan and Susan Rodger. 2009. “Using Peer-led Team Learning to Increase
     Participation and Success of Underrepresented Groups in Introductory Computer Science.” Paper presented at the
     Association for Computing Machinery’s Symposium on Computer Science Education, March 3-7, in Chattanooga, Tennessee.